ai-crawler-checkerCheck a robots.txt to see which AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, ...) it currently allows or blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robotsTxt | Yes | The contents of a robots.txt file. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral clarity by specifying the scope (AI crawlers) and listing example crawlers, making it clear what the tool checks. No contradictions.
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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and expected result (whether AI crawlers are allowed or blocked). It is self-contained and understandable without additional context.
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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'robotsTxt' with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter details, but the schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.
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' with the resource 'robots.txt' and states the exact purpose: to see which AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, ...) are allowed or blocked. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like robots-txt-tester.
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 usage context: when you need to inspect a robots.txt regarding AI crawler permissions. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like robots-txt-tester or robots-txt-generator, but the purpose is clear enough.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.