Skip to main content
Glama

Predictit

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details the tool's actions: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting llms.txt format. This adds context not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 two paragraphs, front-loading the core functionality and output, followed by use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, safe annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, process, and output format. It could mention prerequisites like URL accessibility, but overall it is complete.

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?

Both parameters (url, max_links) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for a URL, explaining the process (fetch, extract, emit) and the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generation rather than scanning.

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 specific use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors), providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the context is sufficient.

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

All Predictit 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but pairs like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded and bet_research/polymarket_edges could cause confusion without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to differentiate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun pattern, but several are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) creating inconsistency. Still readable due to descriptive terms.

Tool Count4/5

33 tools is slightly high but justified given the broad scope (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). Each tool serves a specific role, so the count feels appropriate for the platform's capabilities.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers data retrieval, prediction market analysis, memory management, and subscriptions well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct betting tool), but core workflows are supported comprehensively.

Resources