Skip to main content
Glama

Webflow

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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown. It does not disclose rate limits or auth needs, but given the strong annotation coverage, 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 concise: two sentences plus a use-case list, with no fluff. Key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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, the description explains the process (fetch, extract, emit) and output format. No output schema exists, but the description compensates. Slightly more detail on edge cases or error handling could help, but overall complete.

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 well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond explaining the output format. A baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating an llms.txt file for any URL. It specifies the verb (generate), resource (llms.txt), and scope (any URL), making it distinct from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 (client indexing, own project, competitor audit), offering clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly differentiate from similar tools, leaving room for improvement.

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

All Webflow 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all target overlapping prediction-market signals, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities partially duplicate each other. The Webflow tools are distinct, but the dominant Pipeworx cluster is hard to navigate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: clean verb_noun for Webflow tools (list_sites, get_collection_item), an ask_pipeworx family, plain single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and long noun-cluster names for prediction markets (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named 'Webflow' — only about six tools actually concern the Webflow CMS (list_sites, get_site, list_collections, list_collection_items, get_collection_item, generate_llms_txt). The remaining ~30 tools form a completely different data-research/prediction-market/memory suite, making the server wildly over-scoped and mislabeled.

Completeness2/5

For the Webflow domain, the surface is read-only: sites and collections can be listed and items fetched, but there are no create, update, delete, or publish operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-Webflow tools do not address the stated server purpose, so the mismatch hurts completeness rather than fixing it.

Resources