Skip to main content
Glama

GetBotRank Free AI Search Tools

Robots.txt Tester for AI Crawlers

test_robots

Test one URL against a site's robots.txt for 20+ crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Googlebot, Bingbot and more) using correct longest-match rules. Returns allowed/blocked per bot with the deciding rule.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "test_robots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL, for example https://example.com/page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behaviors: correct longest-match evaluation, one URL per call, and the return shape (allowed/blocked per bot plus the deciding rule). It stays silent on failure modes, whether robots.txt is fetched live, and any rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what is tested, what comes back). No filler, no restating the title.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, evaluation rule, and return contents. Only edge-case behavior (invalid URL, unreachable robots.txt, fetch timing) is unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single url param is documented with an example in the schema, so little is required here. The description adds the cardinality constraint ("one URL") which the schema does not state, making the extra context modest but real.

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?

Specific verb+resource: tests one URL against robots.txt and returns per-bot verdicts. The scope (20+ named crawlers, longest-match rules) is concrete. It does not name the near siblings check_ai_crawler_access or view_as_crawler, so an agent still has to infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Test one URL" implies the use case (verifying crawl permission for a specific page), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives. With two closely related siblings in the list, the missing disambiguation is a real gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.