Skip to main content
Glama

universities

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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds process detail ('Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links') and output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'), which enriches the behavioral picture beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's core function, the second explains the mechanism, and the third lists concrete use cases. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. It lacks explicit notes about error handling or prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility), but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward read-only operation.

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% for both parameters (url and max_links), so the schema already fully documents them. The description doesn't add specific parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the output format and the extraction process, which is marginal. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate'), names the exact resource ('llms.txt file'), and explains the purpose ('so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'). It also outlines the steps and output format, making it distinct from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 clear use cases in the 'Useful for' list (client sites, own projects, competitor audit), giving actionable context for when to select this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it's strong but not fully prescriptive.

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

All universities 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all deal with prediction-market edge detection and filling risk. Memory and subscription tools are clear, but the data-access and research tools require careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern such as search_universities and resolve_entity, but the set mixes product-prefixed names (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). The ask_pipeworx_beta suffix also introduces a naming convention not used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and almost all tools are unrelated to the apparent 'universities' domain—only search_universities matches the server name. The count might suit a broad data-research platform, but it is poorly scoped for this server's stated identity.

Completeness1/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only a name/country university search exists, with no university detail, ranking, program, admissions, or comparison coverage. Agents would dead-end immediately after finding a list of universities.

Resources