Skip to main content
Glama

Trove

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds internal behavior details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard llms.txt format. This is consistent and provides useful context 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?

Two concise sentences plus a bullet list. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the process, and the bullet list provides use cases. No superfluous content.

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 the tool's complexity, full parameter coverage in schema, and thorough annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description sufficiently explains the output format (standard llms.txt markdown) and action flow. No output schema needed.

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 both parameters well-documented (url and max_links with types and descriptions). The description does not add additional parameter details, so baseline 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 specifies the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the scope 'for any URL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than auditing or analysis.

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 enumerates three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, and auditing competitor crawling. This provides clear context but does not state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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

All Trove 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all answer questions; entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all cover company data). Descriptions provide distinctions, but an agent can easily misselect, especially between the Pipeworx query tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, unsubscribe), others use descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) or nouns (deep_research, entity_profile). No consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools covering diverse domains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), the server feels overloaded. The scope would be better served by splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., data query, prediction market, memory). Many tools are peripheral to a core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is fairly comprehensive within its domains: CRUD for memory (remember/recall/forget), subscription management, extensive data query options, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no update memory, no direct trading), but agents can work around them.

Resources