Skip to main content
Glama

Paperswithcode

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, starting with purpose, method, and use cases. It is moderately concise but provides essential context without excessive verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output as a single text blob ready for deployment. It covers the function adequately, though it could mention potential error cases or limitations.

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% for both parameters. The description restates the url purpose but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the output format (standard markdown) and distinct uses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on 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 use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. While it doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is sufficient for guidance.

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

All Paperswithcode 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical in behavior, creating direct overlap. Additionally, the five query/research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, bet_research) and six Polymarket tools have heavily overlapping boundaries that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, with consistent domain prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and a verb_noun majority (get_paper, search_papers, resolve_entity). However, bare-verb memory tools (remember, recall, forget) and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, trending_papers, deep_research) break the dominant convention, making the set mixed though not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several are near-duplicates or overlapping query modes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded). The server bundles paper search, a universal data router, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, and AI visibility into one surface, which feels over-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The surface is quite thorough for its broad domain: querying has grounded/deep/meta variants, companies have profile/compare/change/claim tools, prediction markets have research/edges/arbitrage/fill-risk/spread tracking, and subscriptions/memory have full lifecycles. Minor gaps exist (no full pack catalog listing, no direct fetch-by-URI tool, no paper leaderboards), but agents can work around them via discover_tools/ask_pipeworx.

Resources