Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

domain_robots

Fetch a domain's robots.txt by resolving its hostname through public DoH, pinning the HTTPS request to a validated public IP, and returning up to 256 KiB.

Instructions

Fetch robots.txt. Resolves the hostname through public DoH, pins the HTTPS request to a validated public IP, and returns robots.txt up to 256 KiB.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "domain_robots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesBare DNS hostname

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the DoH hostname resolution, the IP-pinning/validation step (an SSRF-hardening behavior), and a 256 KiB response cap. It stops short of stating what happens on a missing robots.txt, non-200 status, or non-HTTPS/unreachable hosts.

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?

One compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral guarantees. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing clauses are dense and could be split for easier scanning.

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?

For a one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns, its size limit, and the network-safety behavior. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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 parameter is already documented as a "Bare DNS hostname." The description's mention of resolving the hostname via public DoH adds slight context about how the value is treated, but no format or validation rules beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ("Fetch robots.txt") and scopes it to a single domain input. It is clearly distinguishable from the RDAP/DNS/site siblings, though it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts its scope with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a site's crawl policy. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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