Skip to main content
Glama

Openstates

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds process details (page fetching, extraction, markdown emission) and output characteristics ('single text blob'), enriching the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main action, the process, and the intended use cases. The description is front-loaded with the primary outcome and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with comprehensive safety annotations and clear output description, the information is complete. No significant gaps remain that would hinder an agent from selecting or invoking it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description only indirectly references 'any URL' and 'key links', adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('llms.txt file'), and the process (fetches, extracts, emits). It differentiates from siblings by specifying the output format and targeted use cases, making it unmistakable what this tool does.

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?

Lists concrete scenarios where the tool is useful (client sites, own projects, competitor audits). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the provided use cases give sufficient contextual guidance for when to invoke it.

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

All Openstates 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set includes multiple pairs of nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage) that overlap heavily in purpose. Many tools also combine unrelated functions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right one without confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no discernible pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_bill), and even lengthy descriptive names (scan_competitor_ai_presence) are mixed. The naming style is chaotic and inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on OpenStates (state legislatures). Only a few tools (search_bills, get_bill, etc.) relate to the server's name, while the rest are tangentially related to data lookups, betting, or AI visibility, making the set bloated.

Completeness1/5

The server's core domain (state legislative data) is severely underserved: only about 5 tools cover bills and legislators, lacking basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. Many obvious operations (e.g., searching bills by subject, tracking votes) are missing, while unrelated tools dominate.

Resources