Skip to main content
Glama

Transport 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete steps: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, process, and use cases. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant or extraneous content.

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 full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and simple parameters, the description covers the tool's functionality and output adequately. Could mention limitations like public URLs only, but current information is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions the url implicitly ('fetches the page') but does not add new meaning to max_links. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 given URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource 'llms.txt file'. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the output format and use cases like indexing client sites or auditing competitors.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor's AI visibility. While it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, the provided contexts are clear and practical.

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

All Transport 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among the many question-answering tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes) and the prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). While each has nuanced differences, agents will struggle to select the right one, especially with several 'ask_pipeworx' variants that behave nearly identically.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember), others are noun_phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and a few like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' don't follow a consistent structure. The mixed conventions make prediction of new tool names difficult.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'Transport Feeds'. The majority of tools are unrelated to transport feeds, covering generic data research, prediction markets, and memory utilities. The count overwhelms any focused purpose and would require extensive discovery to navigate.

Completeness3/5

For the actual data-research and prediction-market functions, the surface is quite complete—covering lookups, comparisons, grounded verification, arbitrage scans, fill risk, trending, and subscriptions. However, for the declared domain (transport feeds), there are only two feed-specific tools (list_feeds, read_feed) with no write/update/delete operations, leaving obvious gaps.

Resources