Skip to main content
Glama

mathjs

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining the process (fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links) and the output (single text blob in standard llms.txt markdown format), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences front-load the main purpose, then detail the process and output, and finish with use cases. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, what output to expect, and when to use it. Annotations provide safety metadata, and the schema documents parameters, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The schema covers 100% of both parameters (url and max_links) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence, which focus on visibility or presence rather than file generation.

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 provides explicit use cases ('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'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All mathjs 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family (4 variants) and polymarket tools (5 variants). The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also overlap with each other. While descriptions provide some differentiation, the sheer number of similar tools makes it hard for an agent to quickly distinguish the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (bet_research, entity_profile), and others are adjective_noun (recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). The naming is arbitrary and doesn't follow a predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count is high but not extreme for a broad data platform. However, the server is named 'mathjs', implying a math focus, yet only 2 tools (evaluate, convert_units) are math-related. The vast majority of tools belong to a completely different domain (data lookups, prediction markets, subscriptions), making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a math server, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing basic operations like plotting, equation solving, calculus, etc. For the actual data integration and prediction market functionality, the set is more complete, but the server name misleads. The mismatch between name and content makes the completeness score very low based on the implied domain.

Resources