Skip to main content
Glama

Openfema

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).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by describing the process (fetches page, extracts data, emits markdown) and output format (single text blob), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then details the process and output, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (standard llms.txt markdown, text blob). It covers the process and use cases sufficiently for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing examples for url ('https://example.com') and default/max values for max_links (default 25, max 50), enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: generate a production-ready llms.txt file for a URL. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the output format and use case, distinguishing it from related tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 description provides explicit usage scenarios: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing a competitor. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear from the sibling tools.

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

All Openfema 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or heavily overlapping: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover grounded-answer territory. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries that would require careful reading to differentiate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes several conventions: verb_noun (query_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, disaster_declarations, deep_research), and branded prefixes (pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Some tools use scan_, some ask_, some list_, with no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold and carries a lot of surface area. The server is named Openfema, yet only about three tools actually relate to FEMA data, making the count feel inflated relative to the stated name and purpose.

Completeness4/5

For its actual broad domain—a general structured-data research gateway—the surface is quite comprehensive: discovery, single lookups, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct OpenFEMA dataset metadata beyond list_datasets, and some tools require accounts/paywalls), but agents can generally accomplish the intended workflows.

Resources