Quattr

ai_crawler_analysis

Read-only

How are AI answer-engine crawlers (GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended) hitting this site? Crawl volume, status codes and unique pages per AI bot over time, from server web logs. Use for "are AI crawlers reaching our content", "which AI bots crawl us most", "AI crawler coverage". This is server-log bot activity, NOT answer-engine citations (see ai_visibility_*).

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": {
      "date_range": "<date_range>"
    },
    "name": "ai_crawler_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Restrict to one bot, e.g. "GPTBot".
`date_range`	Yes	Explicit date range, e.g. "2026-05-01 to 2026-05-31". Both endpoints are INCLUSIVE — the END day is covered (a 7-day range = 7 days). Quattr weeks run Sunday–Saturday; for "last week" use the most recent complete Sun–Sat span.
`granularity`	No	Bucket crawl volume over time instead of a single total.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real interpretive context beyond that: the numbers come from server web logs rather than any citation/synthesis pipeline, which materially changes how results should be read. It does not describe return shape or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the framing question, then the bot list, then the metrics, then the disambiguation sentence. Every clause carries information and the retrieval-friendly quoted phrases are dense rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned measures (crawl volume, status codes, unique pages over time). Combined with the source-of-data clarification and the sibling exclusion, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself is rich (inclusive date endpoints, Quattr Sunday–Saturday weeks, enum granularity values). The description adds nothing about bot naming or date syntax, but none is needed; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific analysis (AI answer-engine crawler activity), enumerates the exact bots covered, and states the data source (server web logs) plus the metric set (crawl volume, status codes, unique pages). It explicitly differentiates itself from the ai_visibility_* siblings, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives three concrete trigger phrases ('are AI crawlers reaching our content', 'which AI bots crawl us most', 'AI crawler coverage') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative family: it is server-log bot activity, NOT answer-engine citations (see ai_visibility_*). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

All Quattr tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?