keyso-mcp

keyso_get_robots_dates

Retrieve modification dates of a domain's robots.txt file to monitor SEO changes and updates.

Instructions

Анализ robots.txt - даты изменения файла Method: GET Path: /robots/dates Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/robots/dates?domain=keys.so

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "keyso_get_robots_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	API token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
`domain`	Yes	in: query \| Имя домена
`base_url`	No	Override API base URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It provides the HTTP method and path, implying a read-only GET request, but doesn't mention authentication requirements (token), response format, rate limits, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure.

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 concise, with the purpose stated first, followed by method, path, and a request example. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary filler, though the Russian wording might reduce clarity for non-Russian agents.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't describe the response structure, how it differs from the sibling keyso_get_robots_data, or any error conditions. For a simple GET with one required parameter, this is borderline, but the lack of output expectations and differentiation makes it insufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example request clarifies the domain parameter usage, but it doesn't add meaning for the token or base_url parameters beyond the schema. It adds slight value through the example but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of extra context.

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 states the tool analyzes robots.txt modification dates, clearly indicating the resource and operation. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool keyso_get_robots_data, but the focus on 'dates' naturally distinguishes it from a generic robots data tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and path.

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

Deploy Server