check_llms_txtFetch /llms.txt of a site and report whether it exists, whether its links work, and whether /llms-full.txt exists. When there is none, the full report holds a draft built from the site's own pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Domain or address of the site, for example example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it validates that the file's links work and, when no llms.txt exists, returns a draft generated from the site's own pages — context an agent could not get from annotations alone.
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, zero filler: the action and outputs are front-loaded, and the fallback-draft note follows as a dependent clause. Nothing restates the title or the schema.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does — existence, link validity, /llms-full.txt presence, and the draft fallback. Only minor gaps remain, such as fetch cost/timeouts or how link failures are reported.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema coverage that already explains the domain/address format (example.com). The description implies the same but adds no syntax, normalization, or protocol-handling details, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource (fetch /llms.txt of a site) plus exactly what it reports: existence, link health, and presence of /llms-full.txt. That scope is clearly distinct from siblings like check_page, backlinks, and check_ai_crawler_access, so an agent can route on it without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description — you call it to audit a site's llms.txt — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no alternative tool is named. The sibling check_ai_crawler_access in particular is never contrasted, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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.