Skip to main content
Glama

Openholidays

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency about the extraction process (fetches page, extracts title/description/links) and output format (standard llms.txt markdown, ready to drop at site-root). No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise (two sentences plus a use-case list) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, though the use-case list could be slightly tighter.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (standard markdown blob) and its intended placement. It covers the main behavior without omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('production-ready llms.txt file'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying target users (AI crawlers like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) and listing concrete use cases.

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 clear use-case examples (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Openholidays 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 have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple Polymarket tools) and many serve unrelated domains, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task, especially given the server's holiday theme.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a lowercase_with_underscores pattern, but the prefixes vary (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, etc.) and some names are less descriptive (e.g., process, run, execute-like vague verbs are absent, but still the naming lacks a unified convention across the broad set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Openholidays'. The vast majority of tools (e.g., SEC filings, Polymarket, npm scanning) are unrelated to holidays, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the holiday domain, the server includes necessary tools (list_countries, list_subdivisions, public_holidays, school_holidays) and is complete. However, the server's actual scope is far broader, and many unrelated tools are present, which dilutes the completeness for its stated purpose.

Resources