Skip to main content
Glama

Opendatasoft

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Generate llms.txt

generate_llms_txt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL of the site to summarize, e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page.
max_linksNoMaximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits a text blob. It also notes the output location (site-root/llms.txt), which goes beyond annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the process and use cases. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (network fetch, output generation), the description covers the input (URL), the process (fetch/extract/emit), the output (single text blob), and placement guidance. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, making this complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (url and max_links), so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action (generate a production-ready llms.txt file), the target resource (any URL), and the output format (standard llms.txt markdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Useful for' section provides clear context for when to use the tool (client indexing, own project, competitor audit), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, earning a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Opendatasoft toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is a kitchen sink of unrelated utilities (Opendatasoft catalog, Pipeworx data search, prediction markets, npm scanning, memory, etc.). The 'ask_pipeworx' family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could easily be confused. The wide variety of purposes with overlapping names makes it hard for an agent to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is wildly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), concatenated (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage), verb phrases (compare_entities, suggest_questions), and simple nouns (dataset, records). No consistent pattern exists, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the server is overloaded with a scattershot collection of capabilities unrelated to its name (Opendatasoft). Only 5 tools directly relate to Opendatasoft, while the rest cover diverse third-party services. This indicates poor scope focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks completeness for any single purpose. For Opendatasoft, it has only read-oriented tools with no create/update/delete. For Pipeworx, many query tools exist but no data ingestion. Prediction market tools are extensive but not part of the core mission. Overall, the surface has significant gaps.

Resources