Skip to main content
Glama

Usda Fdc

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by explaining the process (fetch, extract, emit format) and the output nature, providing helpful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then process, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Annotations handle behavioral traits.

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 covers both parameters (url, max_links) with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a llms.txt file for any URL, extracting title/description/key links and emitting standard markdown format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its unique purpose in AI crawler indexing.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All Usda Fdc 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes USDA food data tools with a large number of unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, etc.), causing significant overlap in purpose. Many tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all perform research/lookups with similar scopes, making it difficult for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names generally follow a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_foods, search_foods), but there is inconsistency in prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback vs. polymarket_arbitrage) and some names are long and varied. The naming is readable but not highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on USDA Food Data Central. Many tools are unrelated to food (e.g., Polymarket, Kalshi, npm scanning, subscription management), making the server feel bloated and unfocused. A typical food data server would have 5-10 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the USDA FDC domain, the tool surface is complete: it includes list, search, get, and nutrient retrieval. However, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes the server's focus. The food-specific operations are well-covered, but the overall server lacks coherence.

Resources