Skip to main content
Glama

Opensensemap

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool 'Fetches the page' (network access) and 'emits the standard llms.txt markdown format' as output, which are behaviors not inferable from annotations alone.

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 three sentences plus a use-case list, with no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds distinct information: action, mechanism, output, and scenarios.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. Combined with the rich annotations and explicit behavior, this provides a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (url and max_links) with clear descriptions at 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, like mentioning 'link entries' correlates with max_links, but this is marginal. Therefore a 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It further explains the mechanism (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and the output format, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 concrete 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.' It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but given the uniqueness of the tool, these scenarios sufficiently guide when to use it.

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

All Opensensemap 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior today, while discover_tools and suggest_questions overlap as discovery/onboarding entry points. The Polymarket tools also blur together across arbitrage, edges, edge tracking, and fill risk, making tool selection prone to mistakes despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: some are clear verb_noun actions like validate_claim and compare_entities, while others are noun-led like recent_alerts and entity_profile, or domain-prefixed like polymarket_edges and opensensemap_nearby. There is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set, and the tools span several unrelated domains: OpenSenseMap sensors, Pipeworx data access, Polymarket research, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. A server named Opensensemap hosting this much unrelated functionality feels poorly scoped.

Completeness3/5

The OpenSenseMap portion covers nearby discovery, box lookup, and area averages, but lacks historical/time-series access and station lifecycle operations, which are notable gaps for a sensor data server. The broader Pipeworx surface has strong lookup, research, validation, and subscription coverage, so the main incompleteness is in the named domain.

Resources