Skip to main content
Glama

uselessfacts

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable detail by explaining the process: fetches the page, extracts key elements, and emits markdown. This goes beyond the 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 two sentences plus a tight 'Useful for:' list. Every sentence adds value, and the primary purpose is stated up front. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value ('single text blob'), the process, and typical use cases. Combined with strong annotations and full schema coverage, this description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce the 'any URL' flexibility. Baseline of 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 is precise: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning AI crawlers and the output format, making its unique function unmistakable.

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 'Useful for:' list provides concrete scenarios (client site indexing, own project, competitor audit) that indicate when to use the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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

All uselessfacts 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx for general queries, ask_pipeworx_grounded for high-stakes verification, deep_research for multi-faceted research). However, some overlap exists among the ask_* variants and the prediction-market tools (bet_research vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_arbitrage), which could cause misselection without careful reading of the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow the verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor deviations like random_fact and today_fact (adjective_noun) and pipeworx_feedback (noun_noun) introduce slight inconsistency, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range and even the 16-25 'heavy' threshold. While the server covers an unusually broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the six polymarket tools, trivial random_fact/today_fact). The scope partially justifies the count, but it feels over-provisioned.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for a data platform: it covers querying, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, memory persistence, subscription management, validation, and even meta-tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update/delete for external data, but that is not the service's purpose). Overall, no obvious dead ends.

Resources