mcp-seo-audit

inspect_robots_txt

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Instructions

Fetch and summarize the site's robots.txt file.

Args:
    url_or_origin: Full URL, origin, or sc-domain property

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_or_origin": "<url_or_origin>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_robots_txt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url_or_origin`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server