Domduck

Get AI crawler policy

get_ai_crawler_policy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the eight tracked AI crawlers a domain's robots.txt admits, and whether it publishes an llms.txt. Three states per agent: allowed, disallowed, unspecified. Unspecified is NOT allowed, because a catch-all Disallow blocks an agent the file never names, so read effective for what is in force. Reads the last stored reading; it does not fetch the file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	A domain name. Scheme, www and trailing dots are stripped.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool reads the last stored reading and does not fetch the file, and explains the semantic nuance that 'unspecified' effectively means 'disallowed' due to catch-all Disallow rules, urging users to read the 'effective' field. This is valuable behavioral disclosure not present in annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by state semantics and a crucial behavior caveat. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently sets expectations: it mentions the eight crawlers, llms.txt, three states, and the 'effective' field. It omits details like exact response format or error handling, but for a simple lookup with strong annotations, this is adequate and complete enough.

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 already fully describes the domain parameter (with stripping behavior) at 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that the tool operates on a domain's robots.txt. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.

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's purpose: to report which of eight tracked AI crawlers a domain's robots.txt admits and whether it publishes llms.txt. The verb is implied ('get') and the resource is specific ('AI crawler policy'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_sources and lookup_domain.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need AI crawler policy for a domain) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It notes that it reads stored data rather than fetching, which is a behavioral caveat but not a usage guideline relative to other tools.

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

All Domduck tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct: get_ai_crawler_policy focuses exclusively on crawler policy and llms.txt status, while lookup_domain provides a broader reputation snapshot that includes policy as one field. There is some overlap in that both can inform you about crawler policy, but the specialized detail of get_ai_crawler_policy (per-agent states, effective vs. written) clearly differentiates it. list_sources is a meta-tool that reduces guessing, so overall ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clean verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_ai_crawler_policy, list_sources, lookup_domain. The verbs (get, list, lookup) are different but all are action verbs followed by a clear object, making the set predictable and easy to navigate. No mixing of casing or inconsistent conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose: retrieving domain reputation and AI crawler policy data. Each tool serves a distinct function, and there is no bloat. This is well within the typical 3-15 range for a focused utility and feels intentional rather than thin.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core read-only needs: a detailed policy lookup, a broad domain snapshot, and a meta-source listing. The only notable gap is that get_ai_crawler_policy reads a stored reading and does not fetch fresh robots.txt data, so agents cannot trigger an update. However, since this is a stored-data service and both get_ai_crawler_policy and lookup_domain handle missing data gracefully, the surface is reasonably complete for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?