Skip to main content
Glama

Photon

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?

Discloses key behaviors: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown format. With annotations declaring readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, the description adds useful detail beyond 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?

Two concise sentences plus a bulleted list of use cases. No wasted words; purpose, behavior, and output format are front-loaded.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, no destructive) and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, output format, and use cases. No output schema needed as output is a string.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 it generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt' with scope 'for any URL'. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool focused on this task.

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 clear use cases ('getting a client's site indexed, drafting your own project, auditing a competitor') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. Context is sufficient for an agent.

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

All Photon 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within clusters like Pipeworx queries (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.). Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). Exceptions like remember, reverse are still single words in the same style.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is on the high side but justified by the wide scope: data querying, betting, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count is not excessive given the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflows of querying structured data, comparing entities, validating claims, scanning dependencies, and monitoring, with few gaps (e.g., no direct data visualization). Minor gaps exist but are manageable.

Resources