Skip to main content
Glama

Vies Eu

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it fetches the page, extracts key metadata, and outputs a text blob, which goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by revealing external network activity. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but it is consistent with 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence and supporting details in a structured list. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Without an output schema, the description appropriately clarifies the return value ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the markdown format. It does not cover edge cases, but the annotation set is strong and the tool is simple.

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 already fully describes both parameters (url and max_links) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating a production-ready llms.txt file from a URL, including the process of fetching and extracting content. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, but the specific output (llms.txt) is unique enough.

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 three concrete use cases (client indexing, personal project, competitor audit) that indicate when to use the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear.

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

All Vies Eu 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to the stable router right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same class of questions, making mis-selection easy. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blur together around edge detection and arbitrage, further muddying tool boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 33 tools use consistent lowercase snake_case naming, and most follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_vat, compare_entities, resolve_entity, unsubscribe). A handful of noun-style names (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts) deviate from the verb-first pattern but are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is sprawling: universal data routing, prediction-market analytics, VAT validation, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and feedback. While each sub-domain has reason to exist, bundling them all into one server creates a kitchen-sink feel with too many entry points.

Completeness3/5

The core data-routing domain is well covered: universal router, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and search-within. VAT has check + status, and memory/subscription lifecycles are complete. However, there is no standalone tool to fetch a raw pipeworx:// record that citations reference, and the extreme breadth means no single domain is exhaustively fleshed out.

Resources