generate_robots_txtGenerate a robots.txt from rules you supply. Does NOT fetch the live robots.txt. Does NOT prove crawlers will honour it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | No | ||
| sitemaps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / rules / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "agents": {
+ "description": "User-agent tokens, e.g. [\"*\"] or [\"GPTBot\"]",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "allow": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "disallow": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "agents"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output is synthesized, never fetched from a live site, and no crawl-access guarantee is implied.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the two limitations trailing as clarifiers. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a deterministic generation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only soft gap is an unstated hint about the return format (robots.txt text), which is fairly self-evident from the name.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%: "rules" and "sitemaps" carry no schema descriptions, and only the nested "agents" field is annotated. The description says merely "rules you supply" and adds no meaning about structure, allow/disallow semantics, or sitemap format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Generate a robots.txt") and its negative clauses ("Does NOT fetch the live robots.txt") implicitly separate it from fetch/audit siblings like check_ai_crawlers. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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 only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it already holds rules to write out. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no statement of prerequisites, which keeps it at minimum-viable.
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.