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?
Lacks details on network behavior, error handling, or whether any requests are made; since no annotations exist, the description alone is insufficient.
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?
One sentence, no padding, efficient.
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?
Missing explanation of 'group counts', input parameter usage, and output structure; the tool is under-described for effective use.
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 are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'cite', 'validate'), not tailored to robots.txt; tool description doesn't explain the parameters, leaving the agent confused.
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?
Clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (public robots.txt) and specifies the return value (group counts). Distinct from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.
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 on when to prefer this tool over siblings; no conditions or examples provided.
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.
Each tool performs a distinct function: country lookup, URL inspection, robots.txt parsing, timezone conversion, and JSON validation. Even URL-related tools are clearly separated by their outputs and actions, so there is no meaningful overlap.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), some are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone), and one is an opaque abbreviation (cc-fr). A consistent verb-noun or noun-only convention would improve predictability.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number and stays within the typical well-scoped range. The tools cover several distinct utility areas, though the server's stated identity as 'ISO country FR' does not fully explain the broad collection.
The tool set appears to cover a handful of common web-development utilities, but the domain is not strongly defined. It lacks obvious related operations such as URL encoding/decoding, DNS lookup, or broader country data, so coverage feels partial rather than comprehensive.