Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CrawlCheck

by io.github.emmanuelorta
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a site's content rights and AI policy

resolve_rights
Read-onlyIdempotent

What a site declares AI may do with a page, one answer per use (train, ground, summarize, cite, transact), merged from robots.txt read per agent, Content-Signal, ai.txt, TDM-Rep, robots meta, X-Robots-Tag and the terms page, with the signal that decided each answer and every conflict between signals. Signed. Not legal advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_rights"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPath to answer for, default /
agentNoOne crawler product token (e.g. GPTBot) to answer for that agent alone
domainYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: it merges robots.txt per agent with Content-Signal, ai.txt, TDM-Rep, robots meta, X-Robots-Tag and the terms page, reports which signal decided each answer, surfaces every conflict, and notes the result is 'Signed' and 'Not legal advice'. That conflict-disclosure and provenance detail is exactly what an agent needs to weigh the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one dense sentence plus two fragments, front-loaded with the answer it produces before listing sources and caveats. Every clause carries information, though the source enumeration makes it a run-on that is harder to scan than a segmented version would be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: one answer per use across train, ground, summarize, cite and transact, plus the deciding signal and all conflicts. The 'Not legal advice' caveat and signature note are useful, though failure behavior for unreachable sites or missing signals is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, with domain undocumented; the description's 'per agent' and 'with a page' phrases add some meaning to the agent and path parameters, but nothing about domain format or what happens when agent is omitted. Baseline 3 fits, since the schema still carries most of the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('what a site declares AI may do with a page') and enumerates the five use dimensions it answers for, which makes it distinguishable from resolve_robots and resolve_domain. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to learn a site's AI permissions for a path or agent. There is no explicit when-to-use versus resolve_robots, best_source, or check_site_safety, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CrawlCheck toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources