Skip to main content
Glama

Victorian Complaint

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that the tool 'fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format,' adding context about network retrieval and output format. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but given strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences plus a 'Useful for' list. The opening sentence states the purpose immediately, the second explains the mechanism, and the third specifies the output format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers output ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'), process, and use cases. It doesn't mention max_links configuration, but the schema covers that, and the tool's simplicity warrants a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (url and max_links) with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'for any URL' but doesn't add any meaning about max_links beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it 'Generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' and explains the process (fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence or ai_visibility_check, which focus on scanning/checking rather than generating an output file.

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 by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.' While it doesn't name alternative tools or explain when not to use it, the context 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 Victorian Complaint 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: three ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and two AI-visibility tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence) could easily be misselected. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between search/research/bet/compare tools are blurry enough to cause agent confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, and most use a verb-first or noun-based descriptive style (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, validate_claim). Minor deviations like deep_research or process_v2 are absent here; the set is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heaviness. Many tools are edge-case variants or meta-features (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated. The server's stated identity as 'Victorian Complaint' also clashes with this scale, making the count feel excessive for the apparent core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides broad coverage for data research, entity resolution, comparison, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis. It supports query, research, discover, validate, and monitor workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps like a generic 'get_entity' or direct data-writing tools exist, but they are not core to the implied domain.

Resources