依 RFC 9309 測試某個 User-Agent 能否抓取某路徑。
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": {
"robots": "<robots>",
"user_agent": "<user_agent>"
},
"name": "test_robots_txt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| robots | Yes | ||
| user_agent | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It references RFC 9309 but does not disclose whether the test performs network fetches, whether it is read-only, what result format to expect, or any rate-limit or permission constraints.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a terse tool summary.
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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the required robots parameter, the expected output, or usage context for a three-parameter evaluation tool.
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 0% with three parameters. The description names User-Agent and path conceptually, but it omits the required 'robots' parameter entirely and provides no format or meaning for any parameter, failing to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.
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 ('test') and resource (whether a User-Agent can crawl a path) under RFC 9309, so the core action is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like generate_robots_txt or check_site_crawlers.
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 description gives only the tool's purpose, with no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never says when to prefer this over generate_robots_txt, check_site_crawlers, or other robots-related siblings.
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.