Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Food Hygiene

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 declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts content, and emits markdown, which goes beyond annotations. 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?

The description is concise (two sentences plus use cases), front-loaded with the main action, and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output format ('single text blob') and use cases. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple tool with good annotations, it's nearly complete.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little new meaning beyond the schema, 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 states the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' and 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on llms.txt generation.

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 lists three explicit use cases (client indexing, personal project, competitor audit), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical usage.

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

All Uk Food Hygiene 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same data, and five polymarket_* tools overlap on edge detection and arbitrage. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are subtle and the server name 'Uk Food Hygiene' adds a layer of confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary widely: brand-style names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), verb_noun pairs (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), and bare verbs (recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Uk Food Hygiene' has 33 tools, of which only two (uk_food_hygiene_search, uk_food_hygiene_details) relate to food hygiene. The rest are a grab-bag of Pipeworx platform utilities, prediction-market tools, memory helpers, and subscription features — an extreme mismatch between count and stated scope.

Completeness2/5

The two food hygiene tools cover search and detail lookup, which handles the core use case, but the broader tool surface has notable gaps: citation URIs are returned but no fetch/read tool exists, and the unrelated domains (prediction markets, company research, AI visibility) are deep in some places and absent in others. The overall surface feels like an incoherent collection rather than a complete domain toolkit.

Resources