Skip to main content
Glama

Regulatory Catalysts

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the process: fetching the page, extracting title/description/links, and outputting markdown. 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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, process, and use cases. Front-loaded with the key action and target users. No fluff.

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?

Complete for a simple generation tool. Without an output schema, the description explicitly states the output is a single text blob in llms.txt format. Annotations cover safety. All necessary behavioral context is present.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the output context. Baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool generates a specific file (llms.txt) for a defined purpose (AI crawler indexing). The verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt' are explicit, and the use cases distinguish it from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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?

Provides three concrete use cases (client indexing, personal drafting, competitor auditing). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide applicability.

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

All Regulatory Catalysts 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) could cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case and camelCase inconsistently, with no strong verb_noun pattern. Examples include 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'discover_tools' vs 'validate_claim', indicating a lack of naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, including many utility tools (memory, subscriptions) that seem peripheral to the core regulatory/data domain. This suggests scope creep and could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of regulatory and financial data needs, including company profiles, entity comparison, claim validation, FDA catalysts, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing data), but overall it is comprehensive for its stated purpose.

Resources