Skip to main content
Glama

Take The Meeting

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. Description adds process details (fetches page, extracts metadata, emits markdown) and output format, which enhance transparency beyond 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?

Description is succinct, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description effectively explains the process, output, and use cases. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but overall is sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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 covers both parameters (url and max_links) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. Description does not add extra semantics beyond schema, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for a given URL, specifying verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check) by listing specific use cases like drafting llms.txt for projects or auditing competitor AI visibility.

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?

Description provides explicit use cases (client site indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing) helping the agent decide when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools explicitly, so slightly below a perfect score.

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

All Take The Meeting 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented roles, but the set includes two effectively identical routers (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, with the latter explicitly matching the former right now) and a dense cluster of six Polymarket tools that an agent must read carefully to choose among. This is more than a minor overlap, though the detailed descriptions prevent it from being complete chaos.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case, which is a plus, but the patterns are inconsistent: some tools are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), some use brand prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and take_the_meeting_evaluate is a sentence-like outlier. The prefixes do provide grouping, but the naming doesn't give a predictable action structure.

Tool Count2/5

32 top-level tools is above the 25+ threshold and will bloat an agent's tool-selection surface, especially because the server name 'Take The Meeting' suggests a narrow meeting tool while 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx/data features. Even as a broad data-research server, several tools could be collapsed (the ask variants, the Polymarket family), so the count feels inflated.

Completeness2/5

For the purpose implied by the server name and the lone meeting tool, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to list or fetch meetings, access calendar/attendee context, or do anything beyond evaluating one set of supplied parameters. For the broad data-research domain that most tools actually serve, the read/research side is rich, but that is a completely different purpose from 'Take The Meeting', leaving the meeting feature as a disconnected dead end.

Resources