Skip to main content
Glama

Rba

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds process details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also explains the output as a single text blob. This goes beyond the annotations and provides helpful context about tool behavior.

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, each serving a clear purpose: purpose/outcome, process, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, contains no redundant or filler content, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states the output is a single text blob in standard llms.txt format. Combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, this makes the tool's behavior and expectations clear. Minor missing context (e.g., failure handling or rate limits) would push it to a 5, but it is complete for its moderate complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific info, only implying the URL is for the site to summarize. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a clear resource ('llms.txt file for any URL'), and states the desired outcome (AI crawlers can index the site cleanly). It also distinguishes itself from general web tools by mentioning the standard llms.txt format and specific use cases, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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 use cases ('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'), giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, which would have elevated it to a 5.

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

All Rba 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all target prediction-market opportunities. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share company-research territory, making misselection likely without reading long descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, rba_cash_rate), and some are brand-prefixed product names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending). The polymarket_* and rba_* families are internally consistent, but the overall surface has no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface, well above the 25+ threshold that typically becomes unwieldy. While the server covers a broad domain (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, company research), many tools are niche variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence) that add cognitive load rather than earning their place.

Completeness3/5

Core flows are well covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has ask_pipeworx plus grounded and research variants. However, the surface is sprawly and uneven — prediction markets get six tools while other domain areas rely on generic routing, and the server's overall purpose is diffuse enough that gaps are hard to assess cleanly.

Resources