Check whether a domain's ads.txt file is correctly configured by fetching and validating its contents for AdSense compliance.
Check if ads.txt is correctly set up on a domain by fetching and verifying its contents
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g., example.com) | |
| account | No | Account name. Auto-detected if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says the tool fetches and verifies, implying a read-only operation, but does not state side effects, output format, failure behavior, network dependencies, or auth requirements. The agent cannot anticipate what a 'verified' result looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for the simplicity of the tool, though 'check' and 'verifying' are mildly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important operational details undefined, such as what the verification result looks like, whether account is required for any domains, and how errors or invalid domains are handled. It is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the domain context, which is acceptable but not extra.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'ads.txt' and clear scope 'on a domain by fetching and verifying its contents'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_ads_txt by focusing on verification rather than generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage context: verifying an existing domain's ads.txt. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like generate_ads_txt or how it relates to list_sites. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.