Skip to main content
Glama

W3c

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the process: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard format. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded: starts with the main purpose, then explains the process, then lists use cases. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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, good annotations), the description is complete. It explains input, process, output format, and use cases. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new information about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., default and max for max_links are already in the schema). No significant extra meaning.

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 an llms.txt file for a given URL, specifies the output format, and lists specific use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which serve the same purpose.

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 explicitly provides three concrete use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor). While it doesn't state when not to use or mention alternatives, the guidance is clear and practical.

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

All W3c 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants plus deep_research and validate_claim overlap heavily on the same routing capability — ask_pipeworx_beta is even explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket tools (arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker/fill_risk/kalshi_spread) form a second cluster with fuzzy boundaries, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. However, most other tools (w3c_search, spec, remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe) have clear distinct roles.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are generally descriptive snake_case with recognizable prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, w3c_*), but verb usage is inconsistent: passive labels like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile sit alongside imperatives like recall, forget, subscribe, and resolve_. There's no uniform verb_noun or noun_pattern convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's claimed identity: the server is named 'W3c' yet only 2 of 33 tools (w3c_search, w3c_spec) relate to W3C. The remaining 31 form a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market service that would justify its own server, making this aggregation incoherent.

Completeness3/5

For its actual purpose (broad data research + prediction markets), the surface is fairly complete: search, grounded answers, deep research, comparison, entity profiles, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback cover the main workflows. But for the server's stated W3C purpose, only search and spec-detail exist with no broader standards tooling. The domain mismatch makes completeness hard to credit.

Resources