Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_robots

Analyze robots.txt content to determine which AI bots are blocked or allowed based on the rules.

Instructions

Analyze pasted robots.txt content. Returns which AI bots are blocked or allowed based on the rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe robots.txt content to analyze

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `analyze_robots` tool handler, which uses `parseRobotsTxt` and `analyzeBots` to process input content and return a formatted analysis.
    // Tool 2: analyze_robots
    server.tool(
      "analyze_robots",
      "Analyze pasted robots.txt content. Returns which AI bots are blocked or allowed based on the rules.",
      {
        content: z
          .string()
          .describe("The robots.txt content to analyze"),
      },
      async ({ content }) => {
        const parsed = parseRobotsTxt(content);
        const statuses = analyzeBots(parsed);
    
        const sitemapInfo =
          parsed.sitemaps.length > 0
            ? `\n## Sitemaps Found\n${parsed.sitemaps.map((s) => `- ${s}`).join("\n")}`
            : "";
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: `# robots.txt Analysis\n\n${formatBotAnalysis(statuses)}${sitemapInfo}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes content and returns AI bot blocking status, but doesn't describe what happens with invalid input, whether analysis is cached, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure for complex scenarios.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (analyzing robots.txt rules), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't address error handling, performance characteristics, or how results are structured. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about return values.

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 fully documents the single 'content' parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that this is 'robots.txt content' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format requirements, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing robots.txt content to determine which AI bots are blocked or allowed. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'robots.txt content', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'check_bot_status' or 'fetch_robots'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this analysis tool should be used instead of 'check_bot_status', 'fetch_robots', 'generate_robots', or 'list_ai_bots', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sharozdawa/robotstxt-ai'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server