讀取網站 robots.txt，回報 GPTBot、ChatGPT-User、ClaudeBot、Claude-User、PerplexityBot 等 13 種 AI 爬蟲是被允許還是封鎖。
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_ai_crawler_access"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation type (read-only inspection of robots.txt) and the shape of the result (allowed vs blocked per crawler), but says nothing about behavior when robots.txt is missing, network/permission requirements, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the mechanism, the resource, and the concrete result set with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a fair job covering what is checked and what is returned (13 crawlers, allow/block), but leaves the url format and failure behavior undocumented and does not differentiate itself from the three llms.txt siblings.
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?
One parameter (url) with 0% schema description coverage. The description references 'the website robots.txt', hinting the parameter is a site URL, but it does not specify whether a full URL with scheme, a domain, or a path is expected – a meaningful gap the description should have filled.
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 (reads robots.txt) and specifies the output (allow/block status for 13 named AI crawlers). It contrasts implicitly with the llms.txt siblings by targeting robots.txt, though it never names them directly.
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?
Usage is inferable from the purpose – an agent would call this to determine whether AI crawlers may access a site – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance relative to check_llms_txt or validate_llms_txt.
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.