Skip to main content
Glama

Pixabay

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds process transparency by detailing that it fetches the page, extracts metadata, and emits a standard format text blob. This gives the agent expectations about input handling and output without contradicting annotations. It doesn't address failure modes, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by process and use cases. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. With only two parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool. However, it could have mentioned behavior on inaccessible URLs or rate limits, but these are minor gaps. Overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (url and max_links) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what schema provides, such as format constraints or defaults. Since schema coverage is high, 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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It explains the process (fetch, extract, emit) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on file generation for AI crawler indexing. The title and name are expanded, not tautological.

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 cases with 'Useful for:' covering client work, personal projects, and competitive auditing. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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

All Pixabay 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set contains multiple near-duplicate lookups: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all do the same routing with minor variations, while deep_research and validate_claim also overlap in information retrieval. The two Pixabay search tools are distinct, but the abundance of overlapping data-lookup tools creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (search_images, validate_claim), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and variants like ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded introduce ad-hoc suffixing. The naming does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is far excessive for a Pixabay server. Only 2 tools (search_images, search_videos) actually relate to Pixabay; the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. The scope is a severe mismatch.

Completeness1/5

For a server named Pixabay, the surface is severely incomplete: only basic image/video search is provided, with no tool for fetching details, downloading, managing collections, or any other lifecycle operation. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx domain is over-covered, but that is irrelevant to the server's stated purpose.

Resources