Skip to main content
Glama

Usaspending

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which the description reinforces by describing the fetch-and-extract process. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format'), though it lacks mention of error handling or rate limits.

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 a single focused paragraph with a clear front-loaded sentence followed by a use-case list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is highly succinct while conveying all necessary information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the output as a single text blob and its deployment location. The tool is simple (two parameters, one required), and annotations cover safety. Missing edge cases like error handling are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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. The description's main text does not add new parameter information beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose of URL and max_links in the description text. No additional syntax or constraints are provided that aren't already in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb, resource, and output format. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on the specific llms.txt generation task.

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?

Description explicitly lists three use cases (client's site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tool list and context implicitly differentiate.

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

All Usaspending 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are essentially the same router with different output modes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. There is also meaningful overlap between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and the USAspending profile/search tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case with useful prefixes like ask_, polymarket_, and usa_, which helps grouping. However, the underlying convention is mixed: some are verb+object, some are noun phrases, and some are bare verbs, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and most of them are unrelated to USAspending: Polymarket betting, npm dependency checks, AI visibility, memory storage, and meta-tools. The actual USAspending-specific surface is only about seven tools, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The federal-contract cluster covers award search, recipient/incumbent profiles, expiring awards, and spending by agency/category/trend, which handles the main contracting questions. Missing award-detail retrieval, grants/assistance coverage, and open-solicitation lookup, which usa_expiring_awards explicitly punts to external samgov/govcon tools.

Resources