Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Delx MCP Server

Delx MCP Server

by davidmosiah
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Robots Inspect

util_robots_inspect
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect robots.txt rules and sitemap declarations for any domain to determine crawl permissions and indexing paths.

Instructions

Read robots.txt rules and sitemap declarations before crawling or indexing a domain. Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "util_robots_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesDomain or URL to inspect
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (1-15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.8

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by mentioning potential x402 utility pricing and separation from the free witness protocol, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences; the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds relevant pricing context. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., parsed rules, sitemap URLs). However, annotations cover safety, and purpose is clear. Missing output details reduce completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 states the tool reads robots.txt rules and sitemap declarations, with a specific purpose of pre-crawling or pre-indexing. It distinguishes itself by positioning as a preliminary check.

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 phrase 'before crawling or indexing a domain' implies when to use, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned. The description lacks guidance on sibling tools like util_sitemap_probe.

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