AutoRank MCP

generate_robots_meta

Build robots meta tags from directives to control search engine indexing. Get the resulting tag and an explanation of what it permits.

Instructions

Build a robots meta tag from directives, with the resulting tag and an explanation of what it permits.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_robots_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	No
`follow`	No
`noarchive`	No
`nosnippet`	No
`max_snippet`	No
`noimageindex`	No
`max_image_preview`	No
`unavailable_after`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the resulting tag and an explanation of what it permits, which suggests a pure builder with no side effects. However, it does not describe default behavior, edge cases, or how conflicting directives are handled.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, includes the output structure, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, which helps. However, with 8 parameters and no parameter documentation or usage boundaries, the description leaves gaps about directive semantics and value formats (e.g., unavailable_after). The self-explanatory parameter names make it minimally viable, but it's not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The word 'directives' is generic and does not explain the roles of index, follow, max_snippet, unavailable_after, or their interactions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Build' and clearly names the resource ('robots meta tag'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_robots_txt and the broader generate_meta_tags. It also states the output includes both the tag and an explanation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by the description—this tool is for building a robots meta tag—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like generate_robots_txt or generate_meta_tags, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server