Skip to main content
Glama

Find and read sitemaps

check_sitemap
Read-only

Finds a site's sitemaps through robots.txt (falling back to /sitemap.xml) and returns each one's status, number of URLs and a sample. Free: needs an API key but no balance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "check_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL or domain, such as https://example.com/page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real operational context: the robots.txt-first discovery order, the /sitemap.xml fallback, and the shape of each result (status, URL count, sample). The cost/auth note ('needs an API key but no balance') is genuinely useful preconditions info, though depth of the 'sample' or limits on number of sitemaps returned are unstated.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: mechanism and return shape first, cost/auth precondition second. Everything is front-loaded and no sentence restates the name or annotations.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it discovers sitemaps, and roughly what comes back. Minor gaps remain around sample size and sitemap-count limits, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is already documented as accepting a URL or domain. The description adds nothing about how a domain-only input is resolved or whether a page URL is normalized, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('finds a site's sitemaps') plus the discovery mechanism (robots.txt with /sitemap.xml fallback), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling check_robots. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The discovery path implies when the tool is relevant (you want sitemap inventory rather than robots.txt parsing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer the boundary with check_robots and page_audit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.