Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown. It could be more transparent about potential limitations (e.g., handling of large pages or dynamic content), but overall it's adequate.

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: it states the tool's action, explains the process, and lists use cases in a single paragraph with no wasted words.

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 sufficiently explains the output ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and covers the process and use cases. No critical missing information.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, mentioning only the default/max for max_links which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 generates an llms.txt file for any URL, explaining the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to llms.txt 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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the unique purpose clear.

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

All Odds Api 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 tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,724 tools with only subtle behavioral differences, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread heavily overlap around prediction-market opportunity discovery. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also fan out across the same SEC/news/patent sources, making selection ambiguous for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: snake_case verb_noun for odds tools (get_events, list_sports), vendor-prefixed clusters (ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few reversed noun-verb names like bet_research. CamelCase is used in ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt adds another style. Only the polymarket_* and pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall pattern is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped server, and the count feels inflated by unrelated meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, remember/recall/forget) that have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Odds Api' purpose. The actual odds surface is only ~5 tools, so the vast majority of the catalog is off-scope padding.

Completeness3/5

The core odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, and get_scores form a coherent lifecycle, plus quota introspection. However, for the server's actual broad-research scope there are noticeable gaps (e.g., no direct single-filing fetch tool despite heavy SEC coverage, a lone npm-dependency tool with no surrounding ecosystem, and no historical/past-odds endpoint), and the heterogeneous domains make completeness uneven.

Resources