robots-txt-generatorBuild a valid robots.txt: allow or block crawlers, disallow paths, block specific bots, and link a sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | allow | |
| sitemap | No | ||
| disallow | No | ||
| crawlDelay | No | ||
| blockedBots | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds capability details (e.g., blocking specific bots, linking a sitemap) but does not disclose the output format, whether it returns text, or default behavior when no parameters are provided. No contradiction exists.
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, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses a colon-separated list to enumerate features. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.
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?
The description covers core capabilities and is useful for a generator with no required parameters and no output schema. However, it omits the crawlDelay parameter semantics, does not explicitly state that output is a plain-text robots.txt, and does not describe default behavior when no args are given. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It maps most parameters with meaningful phrases: 'allow or block crawlers' maps to mode, 'disallow paths' to disallow, 'block specific bots' to blockedBots, and 'link a sitemap' to sitemap. However, crawlDelay is omitted, leaving one parameter semantically uncovered.
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 ('Build') with a clear resource ('valid robots.txt') and enumerates distinct actions: allow/block crawlers, disallow paths, block bots, and link sitemap. This makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like robots-txt-tester and sitemap-generator.
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 the tool is used when a robots.txt needs to be generated, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as robots-txt-tester or explicitly mention exclusions. The usage context is clear though no alternative guidance is provided.
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.