Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: the body is discarded after the check, implying no persistence. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, error, or report) or how invalid JSON is reported, which leaves some agent-facing ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loads the purpose and the key side effect in two sentences with no fluff. It loses a point because the ambiguous 'body' versus 'json' wording could have been clarified in the same space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It explains the core check-and-discard behavior but omits the return contract, invalid-input behavior, and the role of the unrelated parameters. For a validation tool, this is a meaningful gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, three of the four parameters (url, host, zone) are unrelated to JSON validation, and the description refers to 'a body' instead of the 'json' parameter. The description adds no clarification about which parameters are actually used or ignored, so the schema coverage alone does not make the parameter semantics trustworthy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
王The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a body is valid JSON'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and action are distinct enough. The main ambiguity is that 'body' does not obviously map to the 'json' parameter in the input schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or status-catalog. There is no mention of when not to use it or any alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools operate on URLs (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots) and several on time (business-day, iana-zones, timezone, utc-time), creating some overlap in input types. The descriptions mostly clarify intent, but citation and compatibility in particular could still be confused.
Tool names mix nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound labels (business-day, iana-zones, utc-time). There is no consistent verb_noun or other naming pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not excessive numerically, but the server name 'Weekday vs weekend' suggests a single narrow utility, while most tools are unrelated to that purpose. The set feels scattershot rather than deliberately scoped.
The tools span URL inspection, time/date, and JSON validation without a unifying domain, so there is no coherent capability surface to complete. Each mini-cluster has gaps, such as URL tools that only inspect and time tools that lack conversions or date arithmetic.