validate_llms_txtCheck llms.txt content against the llmstxt.org proposal and list errors and warnings by line. Pass content to check text, or url to fetch and check a site's live /llms.txt. No credit cost. Requires signing in with LLMready Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Site URL whose live /llms.txt should be fetched and validated | |
| content | No | Raw llms.txt content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (LLMready Pro sign-in), that there is no credit cost, and that the tool performs an outbound fetch of a live site (consistent with openWorldHint=true). Return content is characterized as line-numbered errors and warnings, which the annotations do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the input modes, then the cost/auth caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers action, inputs, auth, cost, and result shape. The one gap is that both parameters are optional and the description never says what happens when neither is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description only restates the content-vs-url choice without adding constraints, precedence rules, or what happens if both (or neither) are supplied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Check llms.txt content") plus the standard it validates against (llmstxt.org proposal) and the shape of the result (errors and warnings by line). That distinguishes it from generate_llms_txt without naming siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The two operating modes are explained (validate supplied text vs. fetch a live /llms.txt), which implies when each is appropriate. However, no sibling alternatives are named and there is no explicit "use this instead of X when..." routing despite six related tools in the family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.