Skip to main content
Glama

Securitytrails

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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavioral details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' No contradictions with 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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with how it works, and ends with practical use cases.

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?

For a tool with two simple parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, output format, and usage scenarios. It mentions the output is 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'.

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?

Both parameters (url, max_links) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a 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 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifying the verb 'Generate', the resource 'llms.txt', and the target 'URL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence or ai_visibility_check by focusing solely on llms.txt 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 explicitly lists 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.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

All Securitytrails 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same general query/research space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, and recent_changes all overlap in what they can return. The descriptions are detailed and try to steer usage, but the boundaries are fuzzy enough that agents can easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set. It mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), domain-prefixed families (securitytrails_*, polymarket_*), and Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx_*), so the pattern is predictable only within each family.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a coherent MCP surface, and many are highly specialized (Polymarket arbitrage, AI visibility checks, npm dependency scans) rather than core Securitytrails functionality. The set feels like multiple products merged into one rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-research workflows are well covered: routing, entity resolution, profiling, comparison, validation, subscriptions, memory, and basic Securitytrails domain lookups. But for a server named Securitytrails, there are obvious missing security-intelligence operations such as associated domains, IP/certificate enrichment, and broader DNS infrastructure enumeration.

Resources