api_robots_auditAudit robots.txt + sitemap.xml of a site: rules, sitemaps listed, sitemap reachable, URL counts. ?url= [HTTP x402 price: $0.005]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what will be checked (rules, sitemaps listed, reachability, URL counts) and implies a read-only network audit. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, and the 'HTTP x402 price' note is cryptic, but core behavior is clearly communicated.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the action and target in the first words. The parenthetical about HTTP/price is somewhat unclear but does not add significant bloat.
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?
The description covers what the audit examines and how the URL parameter should be used, while the output schema can handle return structure. Missing details are minor: exact URL formatting, error behavior, and clearer pricing/HTTP semantics.
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 only defines a generic optional 'url' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that url should be the site root. It does not clarify protocol requirements or that the param is effectively required despite being optional in the schema.
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 ('Audit') and names the exact resources (robots.txt + sitemap.xml), plus the concrete checks performed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like api_seo_meta or api_scrape.
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: pass a site root URL to audit its robots.txt and sitemap.xml. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as api_seo_meta or api_render_text, and no exclusions are stated.
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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: api_search and api_serp_google both return Google results, api_scrape and api_render_text both extract page text, and api_hash_multi overlaps with api_sha256 for SHA-256/SHA-512. While many tools are distinct, these overlapping pairs create real misselection risk.
Every tool follows the same api_<snake_case> pattern with no mixed conventions or casing styles. The prefix makes the server immediately recognizable and the action/resource is consistently readable across all 44 tools.
44 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped set, making the server feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities. Even though each tool is small and individually useful, the overall surface is too large and would benefit from consolidation into focused sub-servers.
The set covers many common utility categories—encodings, conversions, text analysis, web scraping, SEO, and trends—but has notable one-way gaps: CSV/YAML/TOML all convert to JSON but not back, and markdown converts to HTML but not the reverse. The broad domain makes full completeness hard to define, so only major reverse-conversion gaps stand out.