Skip to main content
Glama

Pirate Weather

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. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts content, and emits standard markdown format, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise with 3-4 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, process, output, use cases. No wasted words, and key information is 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 low complexity (2 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It explicitly states the output format, which compensates for the lack of output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it rephrases the URL parameter and only indirectly mentions max_links through the extraction description.

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 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by listing explicit use cases like auditing competitor AI presence. There is no ambiguity.

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 lists three concrete use cases ('getting a client's site indexed', 'drafting for your own project', 'auditing competitor'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or compare to alternatives like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

All Pirate Weather 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct in purpose but some overlaps exist, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several polymarket analysis tools. Detailed descriptions help, but the sheer variety and similar intent of some tools could confuse agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), single words (forecast), action_noun (bet_research), prefixes (polymarket_, pipeworx_), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named 'Pirate Weather' that only has two weather-specific tools. The tool count feels inflated with many meta-tools and unrelated domains, exceeding a coherent scope.

Completeness2/5

Coverage is incomplete for the implied weather focus (only two tools). Other domains like prediction markets are better covered, but overall the surface is a mix of partial offerings with clear gaps (e.g., no update/delete for subscriptions).

Resources