Skip to main content
Glama

zippopotam

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).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds useful process context: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence contributes value (what it does, how it does it, use cases). No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 2-param tool with complete schema and safety annotations, the description covers output format (standard llms.txt, single text blob) and use cases. The tool is simple enough that no further details are needed.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning AI crawler indexing and auditing competitor visibility, which differentiates from tools like 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?

Provides explicit 'Useful for:' scenarios (client indexing, own project, competitor audit), but does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All zippopotam 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route questions to the same underlying engine, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket_* family also has many closely-related entry points, though descriptions do help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use snake_case with descriptive verb-first patterns (ask_, lookup_, scan_, validate_, resolve_, subscribe) and a clear polymarket_ family prefix. Minor inconsistency exists between lookup_city/lookup_zipcode and resolve_entity, and between noun-style names like entity_profile vs verb-style names like compare_entities, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and multiple could be consolidated: the ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research largely overlap, and the memory/subscription categories could be collapsed. For a data-platform gateway the breadth is arguably justified, but the visible redundancy makes the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core domains are well covered: question answering has multiple modes, entity lookup has resolution and profiling, prediction markets have research/edge/arb/fill-risk coverage, and the memory (remember/recall/forget) and subscription (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) lifecycles are complete. Minor gaps exist such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI, relying instead on MCP resources.

Resources