Skip to main content
Glama
paulet4a-commits

WebDataTools Domain & website intelligence MCP server

by paulet4a-commits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

sitemap_extractor

Extract URLs from robots.txt, sitemap indexes, .xml.gz and text sitemaps, returning lastmod, changefreq, priority, plus new/removed diffs between runs.

Instructions

Sitemap URL extractor that reads robots.txt, sitemap indexes, .xml.gz and plain-text sitemaps and returns one row per URL with lastmod, changefreq, priority — plus a new/removed diff between runs. Billed to your own Apify account: ~$0.0002 per result (Apify free-plan price, lower on paid plans).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoMode — Choose list to dump every URL found right now, or diff to compare this run with the previous one and label each URL new, unchanged or removed. Diff mode needs at least two runs of the same source to be useful. Options: list = list — every URL in the sitemap; diff = diff — new / removed / unchanged since the last run.list
sourcesYesSitemaps or domains — Enter the sitemaps to read, or just the domains, e.g. https://apify.com or https://www.allbirds.com/sitemap.xml. For a bare domain the Actor reads the Sitemap: lines of /robots.txt and falls back to /sitemap.xml, /sitemap_index.xml, /sitemap-index.xml, /sitemap.xml.gz and /sitemap.txt. Sitemap indexes are followed into their child sitemaps automatically. Example: ["https://apify.com"].
urlFilterNoURL filter (regex) — Optional JavaScript regular expression; only URLs matching it are kept, e.g. /products/ for a Shopify catalogue or \.pdf$ for documents. Leave empty to keep every URL. The pattern is matched against the full URL and is case-sensitive, so write [Pp]roducts when you need both cases.
maxUrlsPerSourceNoMax URLs per source — Enter how many URLs to keep per source, e.g. 5000. Counted across all child sitemaps of an index, so a 200,000-URL e-commerce site stops as soon as the cap is reached. Each URL is one billed dataset row.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on several fronts: it discloses the billing model and approximate per-result cost on the user's own Apify account, the output shape (one row per URL with lastmod/changefreq/priority), and the cross-run diff behavior. It omits auth prerequisites beyond the Apify account mention and any rate-limit details, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core capability, then add scope and pricing. The pricing sentence is extra but genuinely useful for a billed Apify tool; little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (lastmod, changefreq, priority) and the diff labels. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though auth and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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% and the property descriptions are already rich (mode enum, source fallbacks, regex case-sensitivity, per-source cap with billing note), so the baseline of 3 applies. The top-level description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sitemap URL extractor that reads robots.txt, sitemap indexes, .xml.gz and plain-text sitemaps') and specifies the output granularity ('one row per URL'). The sitemap-URL scope is clearly distinct from the SEO/diff/whois siblings without needing to name them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named relative to the sibling extractors. The mention that 'diff mode needs at least two runs of the same source to be useful' is a usage condition, but it lives in the schema description rather than the tool description and no exclusions or sibling routing are offered.

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