Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AI Bot Access Checker

by io.seopaslaugos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check AI bot access

check_ai_bot_access
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether AI crawlers and search bots (GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, Claude-User, PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User, Googlebot, Google-Extended, bingbot, Applebot-Extended, CCBot) can reach a page. For each bot it reports the robots.txt rule that applies and whether the server or firewall blocks that User-Agent (403, 429, dropped connection, challenge or captcha page) compared with a normal browser. Use it when someone asks why ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity or Google AI Overviews cannot see or cite their site.

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": "check_ai_bot_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPage to check, for example https://example.com/ or example.com/pricing
botsNoOptional subset of bots to check. Default: all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral substance by disclosing the detection method (robots.txt rule matching, 403/429/dropped connection/challenge/captcha pages) and the browser-baseline comparison. It stops short of noting latency, timeouts, or that results reflect a point-in-time live fetch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the use case, with no filler. Minor deduction because the full 13-bot enumeration duplicates the schema enum verbatim and lengthens the opening sentence without adding selection information.

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

Completeness5/5

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 carries the burden of explaining results — which it does, describing per-bot robots.txt rules and block detection plus a browser comparison. Combined with annotations covering openness and safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the bot enum and the 'Default: all' behavior. The description's long bot enumeration merely restates the enum and adds no new semantics for url or bots; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('checks whether AI crawlers and search bots ... can reach a page') and enumerates the exact bot set covered. The second sentence defines the output precisely (per-bot robots.txt rule plus server/firewall block status versus a normal browser), so an agent knows exactly what question this tool answers.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete triggering scenario: 'Use it when someone asks why ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity or Google AI Overviews cannot see or cite their site.' That is a clear context for invocation, but there are no exclusions or negative cases (e.g. that it does not fix anything, or that it is live-network and slow).

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

All AI Bot Access Checker 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