Skip to main content
Glama

BCP 47 language tag shape

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewAdmin

validate-json

Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description only says 'the body is discarded', which hints at side effects but does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, requires permissions, or has side effects beyond validation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise but too vague to be useful. It lacks essential details that could be included without adding length, such as what constitutes a 'body' and what the return value represents.

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?

Given the sibling tools (normalize-url, status-catalog, etc.), this tool's role is unclear. The description does not explain how it fits into a broader workflow or why the additional parameters are present, leaving the context incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter descriptions in the schema are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., url is described as 'to normalize or cite', host as 'public hostname', zone as 'IANA timezone name'), and the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the validation task. Only the 'json' parameter aligns with the stated purpose, but its meaning is still ambiguous in context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, but 'body' is ambiguous and the relationship to the parameters (url, host, zone) is unclear. It does not specify the input format or expected output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where validation is appropriate or note that other tools might handle related tasks.

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

All BCP 47 language tag shape 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.

Resources