Skip to main content
Glama

Scb Se

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. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also states the output is a single text blob. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes or rate limits, which are not critical given the safe annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a bulleted use-case list. The primary action is in the first sentence, and the output details are in the second. The list adds clarity without excessive length. Slightly more compact could be achieved by merging the list into a sentence, but it's well-structured overall.

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 moderate complexity (2 simple parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's operation, output format, and use cases. It does not cover edge cases like invalid URLs, but for a straightforward generation tool, this is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default and max for max_links are already in schema description). Thus, the description adds marginal value for parameter semantics, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for a URL. It uses specific verbs ('Generate', 'Fetches', 'extracts', 'emits') and identifies the resource (llms.txt file). The tool is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' or 'ai_visibility_check' which focus on analysis rather than file generation.

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, drafting own llms.txt, or auditing competitor visibility. While it doesn't specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, the use cases are clear and sufficient for most scenarios.

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

All Scb Se 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (only differing in verification/depth), and polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread all target similar prediction-market signals, which could cause mis-selection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, query_table, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check (adjective_noun), generate_llms_txt (verb_noun with dot), and several polymarket_* names that are fine but inconsistent with the snake_case verb-first convention.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools is a large but reasonable surface for a broad data/serach platform covering company financials, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and discovery. The count is justified by the wide domain, and the set is not bloated with trivial duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for entities (resolve, profile, compare, search, query) and memory (remember/recall/forget), plus subscriptions and meta-tools. Minor gaps: no explicit tool for updating/creating entities (understandable for a read-only data service), and no tool for listing all available table schemas beyond discovery (subjects covers this). Overall strong coverage.

Resources