Skip to main content
Glama

Xero

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it fetches a page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs a markdown blob, providing behavioral details beyond 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 with four sentences, front-loading the purpose and avoiding fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and clear output description, the description is complete. It explains input, output, and use cases without needing an output schema.

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 has 100% coverage, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient semantic information.

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 a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource (llms.txt file). It distinguishes from siblings by its unique functionality, as no other sibling tool performs this specific task.

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 llms.txt, or auditing a competitor. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contexts are clear and helpful.

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

All Xero 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap (e.g., ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are related; memory tools remember/recall/forget form a clear subgroup). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but the broad scope may cause occasional mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (list_accounts, get_profit_and_loss), others are single words (forget, recall), and some use snake_case with mixed verbs (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). No uniform pattern makes the set harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is high but not extreme given the broad scope (accounting, betting, data queries, npm, memory, etc.). However, the server tries to cover too many domains, making it feel bloated. Each tool is individually useful, but the count is borderline excessive for coherence.

Completeness2/5

The Xero accounting subset is incomplete: only list and get operations, no create/update/delete for invoices, contacts, or accounts. Other domains (betting, npm) are covered well, but the core accounting purpose has significant gaps that will hinder agents.

Resources