Skip to main content
Glama

Theaudiodb

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context: the tool fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard format. This is valuable beyond annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a bulleted list of uses. Front-loaded with purpose, no repetition, every sentence adds value. Highly efficient.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully explains input, process, output format, and practical applications. No gaps remain for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 an llms.txt file for a URL, explicitly naming the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'llms.txt file'. It details the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/links) and output (standard markdown format), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 for own project, auditing competitor AI perception. It does not mention when to avoid using it or alternatives, but the given contexts are sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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

All Theaudiodb 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 tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by admission), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,721 tools, and the six polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) heavily overlap on prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are verbose but an agent would struggle to reliably pick the right one without reading thousands of words.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions vary: verb_noun (get_artist, search_album, list_subscriptions), noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, recent_alerts), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and vendor prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). More importantly, the server is named Theaudiodb yet almost none of the tool names reflect music, making the naming misleading about the server's actual scope.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is over the threshold for a well-scoped server, and the sprawl is severe: 4 music tools, roughly 20 data-research tools, 6 prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, npm scanning, and AI-visibility checks. This is not one coherent server but several servers' tool sets bolted together, with no unifying purpose that justifies the count.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Theaudiodb, coverage is thin: search_artist, search_album, get_artist, and get_album_tracks exist, but there is no search_track, no get_album metadata by ID (only its tracks), no trending/browse-by-genre, and get_artist requires an ID only obtainable by searching first. Meanwhile the 31 non-music tools suggest the real domain is actually Pipeworx data research, making the overall surface feel like an incoherent mix where neither domain is fully covered.

Resources