Skip to main content
Glama

Sports Feeds

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=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it fetches the page, extracts specific elements, and outputs a single text blob ready for deployment. This goes beyond annotations but does not discuss potential errors or limitations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short 'Useful for' list. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the process (fetch, extract, emit), the output format (single text blob), and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it.

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 both url and max_links already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific actions (fetches, extracts, emits). It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than auditing, and the specific verb+resource makes it unambiguous.

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 'Useful for' section explicitly lists three concrete use cases (client indexing, personal projects, competitor auditing), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 5 for explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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

All Sports Feeds 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ only in mode, and the polymarket_* cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries. The presence of ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence, plus discover_tools and suggest_questions, adds further ambiguity about which tool to select first.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case but follow mixed conventions: verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed, validate_claim) coexists with noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges) and prefix-grouped names (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*). While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern, though it remains readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for too many, and the count is especially inappropriate for a server named 'Sports Feeds' — most tools are generic data-research or meta-tools (subscriptions, memory, feedback, discovery) unrelated to sports feeds. The bloat suggests the server is actually a broad Pipeworx gateway, not a focused sports feeder.

Completeness2/5

For a sports-feeds server, only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed address the core domain, and there is no feed search, categorization beyond a simple list, or sports-specific analytics. While the general research surface (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets) is fairly comprehensive, it is misaligned with the stated server purpose, leaving the actual sports-feed functionality thin and with obvious gaps.

Resources