Fetch and summarize a site's robots.txt file to reveal crawl rules, blocked paths, and sitemap references. Diagnose indexing issues and verify SEO directives.
Fetch and summarize the site's robots.txt file.
Args:
url_or_origin: Full URL, origin, or sc-domain property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url_or_origin | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety/behavior profile is well covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond what annotations convey — no notes on network reachability, redirect handling, or missing-file behavior — so it earns only the annotation-covered baseline.
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?
Two short lines, purpose front-loaded ahead of the argument note. No waste.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient — return handling is delegated to the output schema. Only the weak when-to-use signal removes the last point.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and the Args line does add accepted input formats (full URL, origin, sc-domain property). However it does not specify which form is preferred, how sc-domain differs, or accepted schemes, leaving the single required parameter only partially clarified.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch and summarize the site's robots.txt file.' An agent immediately knows what it does. No sibling tool overlaps (e.g., audit_live_site or analyze_sitemap), but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from them, keeping it at 4.
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 guidance on when to use this rather than the many site-analysis siblings like audit_live_site or site_audit, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.