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 |
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?
The description states 'Fetch a public robots.txt' which implies a read-only network operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error behaviors, or any limitations. With no annotations to supplement, it carries the full burden and provides minimal transparency.
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 that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 description lacks critical context. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, the expected format of the URL, or how the output is structured. Combined with mismatched parameters, the definition is 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 parameter descriptions are severely misleading. The 'url' description mentions 'normalize or cite', 'json' mentions 'validate', and 'zone' mentions 'timezone' — all unrelated to robots.txt. They do not align with the tool's purpose and actively mislead an agent.
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 a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (robots.txt), and output (group counts), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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. It does not mention conditions such as 'use when you need to check robots.txt rules' or contrast with sibling tools like normalize-url or domain-shape.
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.
Most tools have distinct functions, though 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handle URLs, and 'timezone'/'utc-time' overlap in time handling. 'compatibility' is vague but not truly duplicate.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-led ('inspect-robots', 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and noun-led ('citation', 'timezone', 'status-catalog') patterns; 'cc-de' is an outlier.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but the server name implies a narrow ISO country (DE) purpose while most tools are unrelated web/time/JSON utilities, making the set feel mismatched.
As a country-ISO resource, only cc-de covers that purpose; as a general utility set, it lacks many standard web operations (e.g., actual HTTP fetch, DNS, text processing), so completeness is poor for the apparent stated purpose.