Website Intelligence MCP

analyze_robots_txt

Parse a webpage's robots.txt file to inspect crawl rules, sitemap references, and directives. Use it to verify SEO accessibility and search engine guidance.

Instructions

Analyze the robots.txt file of a webpage

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": "analyze_robots_txt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 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 carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether it fetches the file remotely, how it handles a missing or malformed robots.txt, what it returns, or whether any auth/rate limits apply.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the key noun front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits useful substance rather than being over-long.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter description coverage means the description must supply everything, yet it supplies only a one-line purpose. An agent lacks enough context about behavior and results to invoke this confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add mild meaning by implying 'url' refers to a webpage whose robots.txt is fetched (rather than a direct robots.txt URL), but gives no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema's uri format already implies.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (the robots.txt file of a webpage), so the action is immediately clear. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling analyze_robots, leaving an agent to guess which of the two to call.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analyzers, nor any note about the near-duplicate analyze_robots. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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