Public ISO 3166-1 record for BR.
Public ISO 3166-1 record for BR.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, network access, or failure modes. The phrase 'Public record' hints at non-destructive behavior but does not explicitly address side effects or safety.
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 short and avoids extra words, but it is so underspecified that brevity harms clarity. There is no structured breakdown of purpose, behavior, or parameters, so the concise form does not effectively inform an agent.
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?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and sits among related utilities, the description is far too incomplete. It fails to explain what the record contains, what inputs are expected, what the output looks like, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools.
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?
The schema provides individual descriptions for url, host, json, and zone, but the tool description says 'ISO 3166-1 record for BR' without explaining how these parameters relate to that purpose. The description adds no clarifying meaning and leaves the parameter set confusingly disconnected from the stated function.
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?
The description is a noun phrase—'Public ISO 3166-1 record for BR'—and does not state an action or resource operation. It gives no verb like fetch, validate, or return, and does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as iana-zones or validate-json.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving an agent unable to determine appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations, it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether it performs network requests, handles redirects, or has rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that state the primary function and a caveat. It is well-structured and to the point, though it could benefit from a brief explanation of the additional parameters to avoid ambiguity.
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?
Given the mismatch between the description and the schema, the tool is incomplete from an agent's perspective. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain how to use the non-URL parameters or what the expected response format is. This leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but the tool description only references a URL. The parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' seem unrelated to the stated purpose, and the description does not clarify how they are used. This creates significant confusion and undermines the usefulness of the parameter descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), which is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or inspect-robots. The additional note about not storing page content further clarifies the scope.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only disclosed behavior is that identifiers are not retained, which is a useful privacy note. However, there is no mention of side effects, output format, error behavior, or any operational details, especially since no annotations are present.
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 very short and free of unnecessary wording, making it efficient to read. It front-loads the core idea, even though that idea is underdeveloped.
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?
The description does not explain what the tool returns, how classification works, which parameters are relevant, or what makes it different from related tools. Given the minimal annotations and no output schema, this leaves too many gaps for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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?
Schema descriptions provide basic meaning for each parameter (URL, host, JSON, timezone), reaching the baseline for high schema coverage. However, the descriptions appear reused from sibling tools and do not clarify how these parameters relate to classification or compatibility checking.
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?
The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify the resource, action, or classification being performed. It does little to distinguish 'compatibility' from sibling tools like 'citation', 'normalize-url', or 'validate-json'.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, examples, or intended scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to guess based only on the vague description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, error behavior, or whether unrelated parameters are ignored. The mismatched parameter descriptions further obscure what the tool actually does. This leaves significant behavioral 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. It loses one point because the exclusion clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data' is somewhat ambiguous without explaining why it is relevant.
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 several seemingly irrelevant parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how inputs like 'url', 'json', or 'timezone' relate to hostname splitting, or what edge cases exist. The mismatched parameter metadata makes the tool especially hard to use correctly.
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?
The parameter descriptions are largely inconsistent with the tool purpose. 'url' mentions URL normalization, 'json' mentions JSON validation, and 'timezone' mentions IANA timezone names, none of which align with 'Split a hostname into labels.' Only 'host' is plausibly relevant, but the schema does not clarify the relationship between parameters.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and a resource. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds useful scope clarification. It is slightly less than 5 because it does not clarify what the output shape is.
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?
The description implies this tool is for hostname label splitting, not WHOIS or ownership lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it state when this tool should be preferred. Some context exists but no direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool does with the inputs, what it returns, or any side effects. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a purpose but offers no concrete behavioral detail.
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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey the essential purpose, so it does not earn its place; it reads more like a label than an explanation.
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?
The tool is complex with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers no context about return values, usage scenarios, or how the parameters relate to the tool's function. It is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema descriptions cover all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and does not specify a concrete action (e.g., 'List' or 'Return'). It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like timezone or utc-time, and the purpose is ambiguous relative to 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Fetch' and 'return group counts only,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention network behavior, failure modes, caching, or whether any data is stored.
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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and result clearly.
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?
The tool is incomplete in context: the parameters do not match the description, there is no output schema or return format explanation, and 'group counts' is left undefined. This makes it very difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The parameter descriptions do not align with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a robots.txt URL, and parameters like 'json' and 'zone' appear unrelated to fetching robots.txt. The description adds no clarifying meaning beyond these inconsistent schema texts.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the target resource ('a public robots.txt'), and the specific output ('return group counts only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone.
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?
The description implies use when robots.txt group counts are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any usage context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently mentions that query and fragment components are dropped, which is an important behavioral detail. However, it does not describe error handling for invalid URLs, whether the input must be an absolute URL, or any other edge-case behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to state the output and the normalization behavior. It contains no unnecessary words or filler and front-loads the key information.
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?
The description is incomplete in context because it only explains the URL-processing behavior while the schema includes three unrelated parameters. It also does not specify the output format or structure, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool with the given parameters.
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?
The parameter schema contains several fields that are unrelated to URL normalization: 'host' is described as 'Public hostname', 'json' says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name'. These appear to be copied from other tools and do not make sense for this tool. The description does not clarify how or whether these parameters should be used, making the parameter semantics severely misleading.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the origin, host, and path from a URL, and explicitly notes that query strings and fragments are removed. This is a specific, actionable purpose that differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which are URL normalization tools.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—whenever origin, host, or path components are needed from a URL—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No direct usage guidance is given beyond the functional description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or any safety constraints, placing the full burden on the vague description.
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 short but not effectively structured; it fails to front-load any actionable information and omits critical details that would make the tool usable.
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?
The tool lacks any explanation of how the parameters contribute to the catalog or what operation it performs, making it impossible to understand or correctly invoke.
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?
The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') are irrelevant to HTTP status codes and do not explain how they relate to the catalog, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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?
The description 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' suggests a reference resource, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes, leaving the tool's actual function ambiguous and misleading.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or normalize-url; the description lacks any use cases, exclusions, or contextual triggers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or permissions. It does not state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, leaving this to inference.
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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The description omits essential context such as the output format, error handling, and the role of the extraneous parameters. Given the mismatched schema, more explanation is needed for a user to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
While the schema provides descriptions for all parameters, the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly unrelated to a timezone tool and appear to be copied from other tools. The description does not clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning the current time in a named IANA timezone. It is distinct from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that utc-time should be used for UTC or that iana-zones lists available zones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or rate limits. The tool is likely a simple read operation, but this is not stated.
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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it omits critical information about the parameters and return value. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making the description insufficient for effective use.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not specify what the return format is (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix timestamp). The parameter definitions are mismatched, and there is no context about how the tool works, leaving an agent unable to use it correctly.
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?
The parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) do not align with a tool that returns a UTC timestamp. These descriptions appear copied from other tools and are misleading. The schema coverage is 100% but the content is irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose, so it adds no meaningful semantic value.
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?
The description states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a clear purpose. However, the parameters listed (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to this purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does. The distinction from sibling tools like 'timezone' is only partially clear.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or contextual cues that would help an agent decide to invoke utc-time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'The body is discarded,' which clarifies that the tool has no persistent side effects. However, it does not explain the return value (e.g., boolean, error) or any error handling, leaving a significant behavioral gap.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is under-specified. It omits critical information such as return behavior and parameter selection. The brevity is not balanced with completeness, so it is more a case of under-specification than effective conciseness.
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?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the expected input and output. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, success/failure), nor does it address the extraneous parameters in the schema. The agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without guessing.
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?
While the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to JSON validation (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for 'url'). The tool description mentions a 'body' but does not explicitly map it to the 'json' parameter or clarify that the other three parameters (url, host, zone) are irrelevant. This creates confusion and fails to compensate for the schema's misleading context.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' It identifies the resource (JSON body) and the verb (check). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'iana-zones', so an agent can infer its role without ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and minimal description, which is insufficient for clear selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
cc-brcitationcompatibilitydomain-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is some overlap between time-related tools (timezone, utc-time, iana-zones) and URL-related tools (normalize-url, domain-shape, citation). Descriptions help, but a few names could be confused without reading the details.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use hyphenated verb_noun patterns (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), while others are single nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone). This mixes conventions and makes the set feel less cohesive.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the typical well-scoped range. Each tool covers a small utility, so the size is appropriate even if the overall domain feels broad.
The tools cover a variety of web and URL utilities, but the domain is not clearly defined. Missing pieces like DNS lookup, HTTP headers, or a general request tool leave some ambiguity about whether the surface is fully complete.