Skip to main content
Glama

Recreation Gov

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 (three sentences plus a bullet list of use cases), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides relevant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and output format without requiring additional details. No output schema exists, but the description explains the output adequately.

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 documentation covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so 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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the resource, action, and output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the specific llms.txt generation task.

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 (client site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing) but does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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

All Recreation Gov 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools cluster around the same purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to similar data sources, and the polymarket_* family has several overlapping edge/arbitrage scanners. The four Recreation.gov tools are distinct but are buried among unrelated Pipeworx tools, making selection ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefix families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* plus verb_noun names like search_facilities and list_campsites. However, the conventions are mixed: bare verbs, brand prefixes, and composite names coexist, and nothing in the naming signals that this is a Recreation.gov server.

Tool Count1/5

This server is named Recreation Gov but only 4 of 35 tools relate to recreation facilities; the other 31 are a general-purpose data, research, and prediction-market platform. That is an extreme scope mismatch for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Recreation.gov surface, basic search and detail retrieval exist, but key operations like campsite availability, reservations, and permits are missing. The dominant Pipeworx functionality is unrelated to Recreation.gov, so the tool set as a whole has no coherent domain coverage.

Resources