Skip to main content
Glama

Data360

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already ensure safe, read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds unique value — purpose, process, output format, and usage. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, focused tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input, behavior, output, and use cases. No gaps in understanding what the tool does and how to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url, max_links). The description does not add extra context beyond the schema (e.g., URL format, default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' — a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by listing concrete use cases (client site indexing, drafting, competitor auditing).

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 enumerates three specific use cases (client site indexing, own project, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the use case guidance is sufficient for selection.

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

All Data360 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near variants (beta currently identical), and the prediction-market tools share adjacent territory. The descriptions do delineate most use cases, but an agent could easily confuse the ask_pipeworx variants or pick between polymarket_edges and bet_research.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of domain-prefixed verbs (data360_get_data, pipeworx_feedback), bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges). The ask_pipeworx family is consistent, but there is no server-wide verb_noun convention and tool names are not predictable from their function.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a well-scoped server, and the set spans unrelated areas: data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation. While each tool has a purpose, the overall surface feels sprawling rather than focused.

Completeness4/5

The core data/research workflows are well covered: ask/grounded/deep research, entity identity and profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and subscription lifecycle management are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit raw-record fetch tool and some auxiliary features appearing as one-off utilities, but no major dead ends are apparent.

Resources