DS4AI MCP

generate_robots

Generate a robots.txt to control web crawlers by defining allowed and disallowed paths and listing sitemap URLs.

Instructions

Serialize a robots.txt for crawl control. Pass allow/disallow (string or array) and one or more sitemap URLs. Index control belongs in the head robots directive, not here.

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": {
      "options": "<options>"
    },
    "name": "generate_robots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`options`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates core behavior (serialization) and accepted input shapes, but does not disclose output format, potential side effects, or default handling of omitted fields. No contradiction exists, but behavioral coverage is only partially complete.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides essential parameter and exclusion guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the sparse schema, absent annotations, and no output schema, the description provides helpful but incomplete context. It covers the main inputs and an important exclusion, yet the 'groups' property is unexplained, and behavior like return value or output destination is not stated.

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% and the schema properties are empty, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains allow/disallow accept a string or array and sitemap accepts one or more URLs, but it does not mention the 'groups' parameter at all, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 identifies a specific action ('Serialize a robots.txt') and resource, and states it is for crawl control. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding index control, which belongs in a head robots directive, reinforcing separation from generate_head and generate_sitemap.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It tells the agent exactly what to pass: allow/disallow as string or array and one or more sitemap URLs. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction by directing index control to the head robots directive, providing an explicit exclusion boundary.

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

Deploy Server