May you fetch this URL? Reads the site's robots.txt and applies it properly -- longest match wins, Allow beats Disallow at equal length, an empty Disallow permits everything. Same address guard as ping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL you intend to fetch. | |
| user_agent | No | The agent name to evaluate as. Default coolant.run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does detail the matching rules (longest match, Allow precedence, empty Disallow) and mentions an address guard similar to ping, which is useful. However, it omits the return type/verdict (e.g., allowed/denied) and error handling behavior, leaving a significant gap for a tool that fetches external content.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. However, the opening phrase 'May you fetch this URL?' is informal and adds little informational value. The structure is efficient overall, but the question could be removed without loss.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean verdict, a detailed report). It does not. It also doesn't address edge cases like missing robots.txt, redirects, or network errors. For a tool that fetches and evaluates external resources, this is a notable omission.
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?
Both parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics; it doesn't elaborate on url format or user_agent beyond what the schema states. It simply references the same address guard as ping, which is tangential.
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 clearly states the tool reads a site's robots.txt and applies it properly, with specific rule details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., ping, head) by focusing on robots.txt evaluation. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage via its purpose; it doesn't state exclusions or mention that it should be used for robots.txt checks specifically. The reference to 'Same address guard as ping' hints at URL validation but provides no decision framework.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.