Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

aeo_site_pages

Read-only

Discovers a site's sitemaps via robots.txt and returns each sitemap URL, page count, and index status. It refuses private or non-public addresses.

Instructions

Discover a site's sitemaps via robots.txt. Returns {site, sitemaps:[{url,url_count,is_index,error?}]}.

Public websites only (http/https, ports 80/443): a site that is or redirects to a private, loopback or
link-local address returns {error: "refused: …"}.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "aeo_site_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "config",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by documenting the exact return shape, including per-sitemap url_count, is_index, and optional error, and by disclosing the SSRF-style refusal behavior for private, loopback, or link-local addresses. It does not say how an empty or missing sitemap list is represented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then the safety constraint. No filler. It loses a point only because the middle return-shape sentence is dense inline JSON that is harder to parse than a short list.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately documents the return object. With one required parameter and a simple read-only tool, the definition covers action, output, and failure mode. The remaining gap is input format guidance, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 has to compensate for the single required 'site' parameter. The mention of http/https and ports 80/443 hints that a URL form is expected, but the description never states whether a scheme is required, whether a bare hostname is accepted, or what a valid example looks like.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Discover a site's sitemaps via robots.txt', which is precise enough for an agent to know exactly what will happen. It does not contrast with the similar-sounding sibling tools site_crawl or site_map, so the agent must infer the difference from names alone.

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?

The usage is implied by the tool's narrow purpose of listing sitemaps declared in robots.txt, and the 'Public websites only' constraint narrows the scope. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool instead of site_crawl or site_map, and no note on what happens if robots.txt contains no sitemap directive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools