Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Parliament

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This provides useful details beyond annotations, though it omits potential issues like invalid URLs or network failures.

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 front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence, followed by a brief explanation of the process and a concise list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, output format (markdown text), and use cases. However, it does not address error handling, invalid URLs, or network failure scenarios, which would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'any URL' (mapping to url parameter) and 'maximum number of link entries' (mapping to max_links), but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not clarify parameter syntax or constraints beyond what schema already provides.

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'), resource ('llms.txt file'), and context ('so AI crawlers can index the site'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than scanning.

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 concrete use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor's AI view), providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use cases sufficiently imply appropriate scenarios.

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

All Uk Parliament 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap), and the massive mix of unrelated domains (Polymarket betting, general data lookup, AI visibility) alongside UK Parliament tools makes selection confusing. An agent would struggle to know whether to use ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, or ask_pipeworx_grounded, or which of the five polymarket tools fits.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with readable names, but the action placement varies (verb_noun like get_bill vs noun_verb like bet_research, entity_profile), and there are compound names like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence. The style is mostly consistent but the verb_noun pattern is not uniform across the set.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority are unrelated to the server's stated UK Parliament purpose. Only 7 tools (get_bill, search_bills, bill_stages, get_member, search_members, search_hansard, recent_divisions) have anything to do with Parliament, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

The Parliament-specific surface is thin: basic bill/member/Hansard lookups exist, but there are no tools for specific divisions/votes, committees, publications, or detailed procedural information. The vast non-Parliament tooling is irrelevant, creating a dead end for any real Parliament research beyond the basics.

Resources