Skip to main content
Glama

ukpolice

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds process details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also clarifies the output is a single text blob. This is meaningful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention failure modes or limitations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the process/output, and ends with use cases. Every sentence contributes 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers what it does, how it works, and when to use it. It lacks explicit limitations (e.g., public pages only) but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters (url and max_links) are well-described in the schema. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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's function: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It specifies the verb (generate), the resource (llms.txt file), and the target audience (AI crawlers). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the llms.txt format specifically.

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 provides a 'Useful for' section with three specific scenarios (client indexing, own project, competitor audit). This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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

All ukpolice 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 clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all answer questions, and the five polymarket_* tools require careful reading to distinguish. The three UK police tools are clear, but they sit among many near-duplicate data-query and memory utilities.

Naming Consistency2/5

Mixed conventions: snake_case verb_noun (get_crimes) coexists with brand-style names (ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (forget, recall). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set lacks a single pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three relate to the server's stated ukpolice domain, while the rest form a general-purpose data platform. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, memory) add bulk relative to the core purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Pipeworx scope, coverage is strong: query, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. But for the ukpolice name, it is missing many UK police endpoints (neighborhoods, stop-and-search, etc.) and has no write/update operations, so the surface feels mismatched.

Resources