Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dc

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). Description adds that it fetches the page and returns markdown, which is useful but not deeply behavioral (e.g., error handling, URL reachability).

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, process, and use cases; front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

With simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output format, though specifying return type or error cases would improve it.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it clarifies max_links default and limit but no new semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file, specifies the action (fetch, extract, emit), and distinguishes from sibling tools as unique.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (client indexing, personal project, competitor audit) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives; nonetheless clear and actionable.

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

All Data Dc 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) share similar edge-detection and arbitrage goals, creating potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are minor deviations like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence, but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still justified given its broad scope (data querying, entity profiles, monitoring, research, etc.). The count feels slightly high, but each tool serves a specific purpose; however, some consolidation could reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of tasks: data lookup, entity profiling, comparison, monitoring, memory, research, and claim verification. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of explicit data source listing or user preference management, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources