preflightWhat a domain publishes for AI agents before you touch it: ai-catalog.json (ARD), llms.txt, agents.md, and its robots.txt directives for AI bots (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended…). Served from the Desvela ARD index when fresh (<7 days), live-checked otherwise. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions data source (index vs live-check) and that the tool is free, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential rate limits, auth requirements, or error handling (e.g., invalid domain).
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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler words. Every sentence provides useful information.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content, data freshness, and cost. It could mention that it's non-destructive, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 has one parameter 'domain' with a pattern but no description. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond implying it is a domain name. Since schema coverage is 0%, more detail would help.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a domain's AI agent publications (ai-catalog.json, llms.txt, agents.md, robots.txt directives). It differentiates from the sibling 'watch' by implying a one-time check ('before you touch it').
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 phrase 'before you touch it' implies a preliminary one-shot check, contrasting with the sibling 'watch' (likely for monitoring). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: preflight checks declared AI-agent artifacts, crawler_block_test measures observed CDN behavior, search queries the registry index, and watch subscribes to change notifications. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names are readable and intuitive, but they follow mixed conventions: crawler_block_test uses a descriptive snake_case phrase, preflight is a single noun, and search/watch are imperative verbs. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_noun pattern across the set.
Four tools is well-scoped for this registry-focused service: one for declared policy, one for observed behavior, one for discovery/search, and one for change monitoring. Each tool offers a distinct capability without redundancy or bloat.
The domain is covered end-to-end: preflight provides the declared artifacts, crawler_block_test reveals actual blocking behavior, watch monitors changes over time, and search lets users discover registry entries. The internal webhook management endpoints are appropriately handled outside the MCP surface, so there are no obvious dead ends.