Skip to main content
Glama

Property Records

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it fetches the page, extracts key metadata, and outputs a text blob. This provides insight into the tool's operation and return format, which is not covered by annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence, followed by process details, output format, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple schema (2 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fills all necessary gaps: it explains the process, the output format, and concrete use cases. The tool's behavior is fully understandable without needing additional information.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (url and max_links) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 specific action: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It also specifies the output format and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on llms.txt generation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit 'Useful for:' scenarios (client indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing), which clarifies when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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

All Property Records 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

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants of the same router, and there are six polymarket-related tools with overlapping arb/edge/fill-risk purposes. Property-specific tools are distinct but buried among many unrelated meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others noun_verb (property_lookup), and many are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear systematic convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'Property Records'—only two tools (property_lookup, property_coverage) actually serve that purpose. The rest belong to unrelated domains (general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a property-records server, the surface is incomplete: it only provides lookup plus a coverage matrix, with no other property-related operations (e.g., tax history, comparable sales) and no way to handle unsupported jurisdictions beyond a simple flag. The unrelated tools do not contribute to the stated domain, leaving the core purpose thinly covered.

Resources