Skip to main content
Glama

Ticketmaster

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational detail: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format' plus 'Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting 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 two sentences followed by a bulleted use-case list. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the process/output, and ends with actionable use cases. Every sentence adds distinct value with zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description effectively covers input, processing, and output format. It also communicates the practical application via use cases. Minor omissions like failure behavior on inaccessible URLs are not critical for a read-only, idempotent tool with this simplicity.

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 detailed explanations for 'url' and 'max_links' (including default and max). The description's mention of 'key links' aligns with max_links but adds no new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by stating the deliverable is the actual llms.txt file, not just a check or scan.

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?

Provides three concrete 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 gives clear context on when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or negative cases. The 'for any URL' phrase implies broad applicability.

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

All Ticketmaster 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tools fall into two unrelated domains (Ticketmaster event discovery and Pipeworx data research), and within the Pipeworx set there are near-duplicate tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). An agent would struggle to choose among these overlapping options and may not realize that most tools are unrelated to the server's stated name.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming uses consistent snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: Ticketmaster resource fetchers are bare nouns (event, venue, attraction, classification) while search tools use verb_noun (event_search, venue_search). Pipeworx tools vary between verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_kalshi_spread). This inconsistency makes predicting tool names harder, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for a server titled 'Ticketmaster' when only about 10 are Ticketmaster-related; the other 30 cover an entirely different service (Pipeworx). The count is far beyond a focused scope and suggests the server should be split into two separate, well-scoped MCP servers.

Completeness4/5

For the Ticketmaster half, the surface is complete for read-only event discovery (search events/venues/attractions, get single resources, classifications, autocomplete). For the Pipeworx half, the tool suite is extensive, covering lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The only notable gap is the lack of any write operations, but this is consistent with the read-only nature of the underlying APIs.

Resources