Skip to main content
Glama

Vat

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds behavioral details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the action and output format. No redundant words; every sentence adds value succinctly.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its input requirements, output format ('single text blob'), and intended use cases. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described adequately (url, max_links with default/max). The description reuses the schema descriptions verbatim and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file for any URL'), and explains the extracted elements (title/description/key links). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' and 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on generating a standard file format.

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 explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor visibility. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the provided contexts are sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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

All Vat 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, and entity_profile vs recent_changes cover similar ground. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (validate_vat, list_vat_formats, resolve_entity), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are product-branded (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). It's readable but does not follow a single predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, especially for a server named 'Vat' where only two tools (list_vat_formats, validate_vat) relate to the apparent purpose. The bulk forms a broad data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate VAT and Pipeworx servers.

Completeness4/5

For the actual data-research domain, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookup, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim verification, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market tooling are all present. The only clear gap is that the VAT-specific surface is minimal (format validation only, no registration/VIES check), but the overall functional surface is otherwise quite complete.

Resources