Skip to main content
Glama

Google_analytics

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. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds process detail: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the fetch-and-extract workflow.

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: action + process + output format + use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output (single text blob, standard markdown) and provides use cases. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and strong annotations, the description is 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 covers both parameters fully (url and max_links with descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, aside from implying any URL is valid. Given high schema coverage, score is baseline 3.

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 states a specific action ('Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL') with a clear resource and process, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation. It includes the intended output format and use cases.

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?

It provides clear context with 'Useful for' scenarios (getting a client's site indexed, drafting own project, auditing competitor), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions. Thus clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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

All Google_analytics 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both route queries to the same 5,529 tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Only the small ga_* subset is clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: GA tools use a ga_ prefix, but the majority use arbitrary names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, remember, scan_dependency, and polymarket_arbitrage. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated Pipeworx utilities rather than Google Analytics functionality. Only 4 tools actually serve the stated GA purpose, making the count inappropriate for the server name.

Completeness2/5

For Google Analytics, the surface is minimal: list properties, metadata, realtime, and run report—no property management, user management, or data mutation. As a Pipeworx toolkit it's broad but lacks full lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources