Check whether robots.txt or a live probe blocks AmazonAdBot / Google ad crawlers. robots.txt Disallow and Amazon Crawl-delay are high-confidence fails. A WAF 403 against our scanner is a medium-confidence warn that needs verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Publisher domain, for example example.com. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by clarifying the check involves both robots.txt and live probe analysis, and explains result confidence levels (high for Disallow/Crawl-delay, medium for WAF 403). This gives agents useful nuance about interpretation without contradicting any absent annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the core action and followed by interpretation guidance. It earns its place, though the second sentence could be more concise.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately specifies the input and behavioral semantics. Agents know what to expect (confidence tiers) and what's needed (domain). No missing gaps for effective invocation.
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 50% (domain fully described, outputFormat not described in schema but has enum). The description adds no per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides for domain, but the overall purpose clarifies how domain is used. With the outputFormat enum, agents have enough context from schema alone.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('robots.txt or a live probe blocks AmazonAdBot / Google ad crawlers'), clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose from siblings focused on Sulvo account management, ad units, and revenue audits. The tool is uniquely about crawler blocking checks.
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 implies when to use this tool (to check for specific ad crawler blocks) and provides guidance on interpreting results ('high-confidence fails', 'medium-confidence warn'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are unrelated to crawler testing.
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.
Many tools are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.
The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.
With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.
The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.
