Fetch and parse a site's robots.txt to inspect user-agent rules, allow/disallow directives, and declared sitemaps from any URL.
Fetch and parse a site's /robots.txt — user-agent groups, allow/disallow rules, and declared sitemaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Any URL on the site |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (user-agent groups, rules, sitemaps) but says nothing about failure modes (missing robots.txt), rate limits, redirect handling, or permission requirements.
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?
One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists the returned fields without 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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter read tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about what happens when robots.txt is absent or how the response is structured.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'url' is documented as 'Any URL on the site'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Fetch and parse) and resource (/robots.txt) and enumerates the returned content (user-agent groups, allow/disallow rules, sitemaps). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_sitemap and audit_page.
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 implied by the tool's nature (robots.txt retrieval) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as check_sitemap. The agent must infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.