產生 robots.txt：allow_all、block_training（封鎖 AI 訓練保留搜尋）、block_all_ai、block_all，可加不抓路徑與 Sitemap。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "generate_robots_txt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| sitemap | No | ||
| disallow | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it never states whether the tool writes the file to the site, returns text for the user to deploy, or requires write/auth permissions. The gloss on block_training ('封鎖 AI 訓練保留搜尋') is useful, but the core behavioral question of what actually happens on invocation is unanswered.
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 dense sentence with the resource named first and the options enumerated after; every clause carries information. It is compact if slightly crowded — the disallow/Sitemap note arrives without a separator from the mode list.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits deployment/return behavior, permission needs, and the relationship to the sibling test_robots_txt, all of which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it maps the mode enum values and names the disallow-path and Sitemap inputs. However, only block_training is explained among the four modes, and no format is given for sitemap (URL?) or disallow (comma-separated list?), leaving the other three parameters ambiguous.
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 (產生/generate) and resource (robots.txt), and enumerates the four modes so the agent understands the output space. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling test_robots_txt, which is the natural adjacent tool.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The mode names imply intent (e.g. block_training for blocking AI training while keeping search), but the description never says to use test_robots_txt to validate the result or when generation is appropriate versus auditing existing rules.
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.