Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable process details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, method, and use cases. Each sentence adds distinct value and is front-loaded with the core function.

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 2-parameter schema, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, what it returns, and when to use it. It explains the output format and practical applications clearly.

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 descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the exact output format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on llms.txt generation rather than AI visibility scanning, despite the competitor-auditing use case.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (getting a client indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor AI view) but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This gives clear context but lacks exclusion/alternative guidance.

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

All Peeringdb 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all provide data retrieval with subtle differences. The Polymarket suite (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and AI visibility tools (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also have fuzzy boundaries. While some tools are clearly distinct, the overall set has significant ambiguity that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some are verb_noun (search_networks, compare_entities, remember, forget), others are noun_compound (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx), and a few are verb-only (recall, forget). The pattern is inconsistent, with no clear naming strategy across the tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While it serves as a general data platform, many tools are meta-level (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or peripheral (subscriptions, memory). The count feels excessive for the core purpose, and many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness1/5

Despite the server name 'Peeringdb', only three tools (search_networks, search_facilities, search_exchanges) directly serve that domain. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated areas (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions). For the declared purpose of PeeringDB, the surface is severely incomplete—missing common operations like retrieving network details, viewing IX members, or managing peering policies.

Resources