BOZOS

Inspect how a public URL looks to AI agents, without AI

inspectAgentAccess

Read-only

Inspect how a public URL looks to AI agents, without AI. Use this to see what an agent would encounter at a public HTTPS URL. Reports robots.txt status and, for BOZOSReader and five named AI crawlers plus *, whether the path is allowed; the page's redirects, status, content type, selected headers (cache, Link, X-Robots-Tag, Content-Signal), title, description, canonical, meta robots, alternate and service-desc link relations, JSON-LD and anchor counts; whether the URL serves text/markdown when asked; and whether llms.txt, llms-full.txt, the API catalog, openapi.json, the MCP server card, and the sitemap exist (JSON entry points are checked for valid JSON). Respects robots.txt for BOZOSReader: a disallowed or unreadable robots.txt means the page is not fetched. At most 20 requests, 20 seconds; no scripts run; nothing is retained or scored. An allowed value is what robots.txt says, not what an operator does. Same as POST https://bozos.si/api/v1/access-inspect.

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": "inspectAgentAccess"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public HTTPS URL to inspect.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	Yes	fetched:false with skipped_because or error when the page could not be retrieved.
`robots`	Yes	robots.txt status and, per crawler token (BOZOSReader, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, CCBot, *), whether the URL's path is allowed and the matching rule.
`safety`	Yes
`entry_points`	Yes
`inspected_at`	Yes
`requested_url`	Yes
`interpretation`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`markdown_negotiation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive annotations: it discloses the request budget (20 requests, 20 seconds), that no scripts run, that nothing is retained or scored, and that robots.txt is respected for BOZOSReader so a disallowed or unreadable robots.txt means the page is never fetched. The caveat that 'an allowed value is what robots.txt says, not what an operator does' preempts a common misreading of results.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of reported signals and limits. The long run-on mid-section listing headers and file names is information-heavy but largely earns its place; slight trimming would improve scanability.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs: resource limits, robots.txt gating, absence of side effects or retention, and a REST equivalent. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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% and the single 'url' property is already documented as a public HTTPS URL, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the public-HTTPS constraint but adds no format, normalization, or failure-mode detail specific to the parameter beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Inspect how a public URL looks to AI agents') and enumerates the specific signals it reports, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling inspectAgentAccessByUrl, nor from auditAgentDiscovery or planAgentRetrieval, leaving ambiguity among closely related tools.

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?

'Use this to see what an agent would encounter at a public HTTPS URL' gives a clear triggering context, and the closing note ties it to the equivalent REST endpoint. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. inspectAgentAccessByUrl), so selection among siblings is still partly inferred.

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

All BOZOS tools Inspect

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

Need Help?