Skip to main content
Glama

AI NetCafé

by com.ainetcafe

See inside a JWT — header, payload, and whether it has expired

jwt_decode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Decodes the header and payload of a JWT and reports issued-at / expiry as readable timestamps plus seconds remaining. The signature is NOT verified and the response says so — decoding is fine for debugging a token you already hold, but never treat these values as proof of anything; verification needs the secret and belongs in your own service.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesThe JWT string.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: the signature is NOT verified, the response explicitly says so, and decoding should not be treated as proof. This goes beyond basic annotations and is valuable for safe usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds the critical limitation, and the third reinforces safe usage. No wasted words and information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior including output contents (timestamps, seconds remaining) and the security caveat. It is complete for a debugging tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the single token parameter. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 decodes JWT header and payload, reports timestamps and seconds remaining, and explicitly notes the signature is not verified. This is specific and distinguishes it from any other sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says decoding is fine for debugging a token you already hold, and warns never to treat values as proof, directing verification to a service with the secret. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context without needing a named sibling.

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

All AI NetCafé toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that explicitly differentiate even close pairs like diff_tables vs reconcile_ledger and list_models vs model_costs. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the what_can_you_do tool further resolves any confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (build_app, fetch_page, list_tasks), but several notable deviations exist: ai_visibility, china_reachability, model_costs, json_yaml, pdf_to_markdown, what_can_you_do, recall, remember, and jwt_decode. This mixed convention, while still readable, is not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical comfortable range for an MCP server. However, the server is a broad AI utility platform covering web, data, LLM, conversion, and scheduling tasks, and each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose with little redundancy, making the large but organized set borderline appropriate for its scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a wide array of common workflows (search, fetch, table operations, PDF extraction, model comparisons, task scheduling, memory). However, check_job references deep_research, translate_pdf, and make_slides which are not present in the tool list, and there is no update tool for tasks/apps or a way to delete memories, leaving some user journeys incomplete.

Resources