Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
geo-inspector-mcp

geo-inspector-mcp

by Bigsupe55
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Fetch and validate llms.txt

fetch_llms_txt

Check a website's /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt files for existence and validate their structure against the llmstxt.org specification, ensuring correct header, summary, and link sections.

Instructions

Check whether a site publishes /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt, and validate llms.txt structure against the llmstxt.org spec (H1 title, summary blockquote, H2 link sections).

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": "fetch_llms_txt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWebsite URL. Scheme is optional, example.com works.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description only states what it checks and validates. It does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a query tool without output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with clear action and scope. No fluff, front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could mention expected return structure or error cases for completeness.

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?

Only one parameter with full schema description coverage. The description does not add information beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks for the existence of /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt and validates structure against a spec, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_robots_txt.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The context is implied but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools