Generate agent-ready discovery files (robots.txt, sitemap, llms.txt, ai.txt, manifest). Paid via x402 or API key. Output: { robotsTxt, sitemapXml, llmsTxt, aiTxt, webManifest, faviconHints }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical site URL | |
| name | Yes | Site or product name | |
| logoUrl | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is paid via x402 or API key, and it returns a structured object rather than writing files to any storage. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, and there is no contradiction.
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 tight sentences carry the core purpose, payment model, and output shape with no redundant explanation. The most important action is front-loaded, and every clause adds 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly includes the return shape, which is essential. It also communicates the payment requirement. It is slightly incomplete because optional parameters are undocumented and sibling-tool routing is absent, but for a moderate-complexity tool with strong annotations, this is largely sufficient.
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 only 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. While 'url' and 'name' are described in the schema, 'logoUrl' and 'description' are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent must infer their purpose from the output keys.
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 ('Generate') and a concrete resource ('agent-ready discovery files') and enumerates the exact file types and output keys. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling forgekit_ship_bundle.
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 intended use case is implied: use this when agent-ready discovery files such as robots.txt, sitemap, llms.txt, and ai.txt are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of when ship_bundle or ship_verify would be more appropriate.
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.
ship_verify and ship_verify_v2 are near-synonyms, and ship_bundle wraps ship_pack plus an audit while evidence_pack combines screenshot/PDF/HTML. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong granularity or version.
All tools use the forgekit_ prefix and snake_case, but verb placement is inconsistent: business_days_add/count place the noun first, evidence_pack has no verb, and the ship_* group mixes noun and verb senses. The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.
Fifteen tools is near the upper end of a reasonable utility-kit size, and most tools are individually useful. It feels slightly over-scoped because ship_verify_v2 and ship_bundle partially duplicate other capabilities rather than adding clearly new operations.
The web/media surface is broadly covered with screenshots, PDFs, QR encode/decode, OG previews, evidence packs, and agent-readiness audits. However, the set is an eclectic collection rather than one coherent workflow, and there are gaps such as no MCP-level polling for async jobs and no history/retrieval for evidence packs or ship bundles.