Skip to main content
Glama

Senate Lobbying

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, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context about fetching, extracting, and outputting markdown format, matching annotations. No contradictions, but lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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), well-structured with primary action first, followed by output format and use cases. No unnecessary words.

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 comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description adds sufficient context about output format and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description explains the output is a text blob, completing the picture.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; baseline is 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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb (generate), resource, and context for AI crawlers. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check by focusing specifically on llms.txt generation, with explicit use cases.

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 (indexing clients, drafting own project, auditing competitor) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative siblings. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Senate Lobbying 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data; the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in purpose and are easy to confuse. Even detailed descriptions do not fully resolve which tool an agent should pick first.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes, resolve_entity), but there is a mix of verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and brand-prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The naming is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'Senate Lobbying' exposes 34 tools, but only three (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes) relate to LDA lobbying data. The remaining 31 cover generic Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm package audits—an extreme overreach for the apparent scope and likely to confuse an agent expecting a focused lobbying toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For the lobbying domain implied by the server name, only search, get-one-filing, and issue-code enumeration exist; there is no aggregation/stats tool, no lobbyist/client entity resolution for LDA, no registrant or foreign-entity browsing, and no coverage of related concepts like lobbying firm hierarchies or spending trends. The generic Pipeworx tools fill a different domain, so the lobbying-specific surface has significant gaps.

Resources