Skip to main content
Glama

list_websites

Discover websites implementing the llms.txt standard by listing known compliant sites, with options to filter for specific file types.

Instructions

List known websites with llms.txt files

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filter_llms_txtNoOnly show websites with llms.txt
filter_llms_full_txtNoOnly show websites with llms-full.txt

Implementation Reference

  • The switch case handler for the 'list_websites' tool. Filters the list of known websites based on optional filter_llms_txt and filter_llms_full_txt arguments, then returns the filtered list as JSON text content.
    case "list_websites": {
      const filterLlmsTxt = Boolean(request.params.arguments?.filter_llms_txt);
      const filterLlmsFullTxt = Boolean(request.params.arguments?.filter_llms_full_txt);
    
      let websites = knownWebsites;
    
      if (filterLlmsTxt) {
        websites = websites.filter(site => site.llmsTxtUrl);
      }
      if (filterLlmsFullTxt) {
        websites = websites.filter(site => site.llmsFullTxtUrl);
      }
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify(websites, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:404-419 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_websites' tool within the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including its name, description, and input schema.
      name: "list_websites",
      description: "List known websites with llms.txt files",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          filter_llms_txt: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Only show websites with llms.txt"
          },
          filter_llms_full_txt: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Only show websites with llms-full.txt"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  • Helper function that fetches the list of known websites from a GitHub JSON file and populates the global 'knownWebsites' array used by the list_websites tool handler. Includes validation and fallback.
    async function fetchWebsitesList() {
      try {
        console.error('Fetching websites list from GitHub...');
        const response = await fetch(websites);
    
        if (!response.ok) {
          throw new Error(`Failed to fetch websites list: ${response.status}`);
        }
    
        const data = await response.json();
    
        if (!Array.isArray(data)) {
          throw new Error('Invalid data format: expected an array');
        }
    
        const validWebsites = data.filter(isValidWebsite);
        console.error(`Fetched ${validWebsites.length} valid websites`);
        knownWebsites = validWebsites;
      } catch (error) {
        console.error('Error fetching websites list:', error);
        // Fallback to default website if fetch fails
        knownWebsites = [{
          name: "Supabase",
          domain: "https://supabase.com",
          description: "Build production-grade applications with Postgres",
          llmsTxtUrl: "https://supabase.com/llms.txt",
          category: "developer-tools"
        }];
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool lists websites 'with llms.txt files' but doesn't describe what 'known websites' means, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any limitations (like pagination or rate limits). The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with well-documented parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't provide context about what constitutes 'known websites' or what the output format will be. The description meets minimum viability but could be more 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 the schema already documents both parameters (filter_llms_txt and filter_llms_full_txt) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how these filters work together or their default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List known websites with llms.txt files' specifies both the action (list) and resource (websites with llms.txt files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_website', which likely serves a different purpose (possibly checking individual websites rather than listing them).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'check_website' or any context about when listing websites is appropriate versus checking individual ones. The description simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/thedaviddias/mcp-llms-txt-explorer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server