citable
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_siteA | Check whether AI answer engines (ChatGPT search, Claude, Perplexity) can read and cite a website. Fetches robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap and the homepage as each AI bot, scores 0-100 and lists fixes. |
| draft_llms_txtB | Draft a starter /llms.txt for a website from its homepage: title, summary and links to key pages. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_site audits AI crawler accessibility, while draft_llms_txt generates a starter file. Their names and descriptions make selection unambiguous.
Both names use consistent snake_case verb_noun structure: check_site and draft_llms_txt. The acronym in llms_txt is readable and does not break the pattern.
Two tools is thin for a site-auditing and remediation domain, even though each tool is focused. It fits a narrow MVP scope but leaves little room for related operations.
The surface covers checking AI readability and drafting /llms.txt, but lacks obvious companion operations like generating robots.txt fixes, producing sitemap guidance, or validating an existing llms.txt. Agents may hit dead ends when asked to remediate issues found by check_site.