Public ISO 3166-1 record for GB.
Public ISO 3166-1 record for GB.
| 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 provides no information about side effects, network usage, or read-only nature. With no annotations to clarify, the agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
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, straightforward sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core subject without unnecessary detail.
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 too minimal to place the tool in context. It does not clarify how this record is obtained, whether it is read-only, or how it relates to similar tools like timezone or validate-json, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.
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 covers all four parameters with descriptive text, so parameter meaning is clear. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score.
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 provides the ISO 3166-1 record for GB, which gives a clear subject. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'lookup') to describe the action, making the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
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 discloses one behavioral aspect: 'Page content is not stored,' which is a transparency note. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as side effects, error handling, or idempotency, which would be helpful for an agent.
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 and well-structured, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary words and presents the core functionality and a key behavioral note efficiently.
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 four seemingly heterogeneous parameters, the description lacks essential context about how they interact or how the tool integrates with related tools. No output schema or examples are provided, leaving an agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 every parameter has a description (100% schema coverage), the descriptions are generic and do not explain how each parameter relates to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' and 'zone' seem unrelated to returning HTTP status for a URL, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 primary action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but the mention of unrelated parameters (json, zone) creates ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose. The verb and resource are specific, but the mismatch with the parameter list lowers clarity.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. The description does not mention any specific use cases or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool.
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 description discloses that 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy/retention behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. Since no annotations are provided, this partial disclosure is the only behavioral information available.
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 brief, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The single sentence is compact yet ambiguous, and it does not structure the information effectively to convey the tool's purpose.
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. It fails to explain what 'classified' means, what inputs are relevant, or what output the agent should expect. The tool's complexity may be low, but the description leaves critical context missing.
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 full descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters relate to the classification logic.
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. It does not specify what kind of request, what classification means, or what the tool actually does. The verb 'Show' is weak and fails to convey the tool's primary function or its relationship to compatibility.
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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context or conditions that would guide an agent to select this tool over siblings like normalize-url or validate-json.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a negative constraint (no WHOIS/ownership) and does not mention side effects, required permissions, or output format. This is insufficient for 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 tool description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core action and a key exclusion. It is well-structured and easy to read. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.
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 not complete for the complexity of the tool. It does not explain the relationship between the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) and the splitting operation, nor does it specify which parameters are required (none are marked required). The mismatched parameter descriptions further undermine completeness.
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 mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—all irrelevant to splitting a hostname into labels. Only 'host' seems relevant, but its description is generic. The tool description does not clarify how the parameters should be used.
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 that the tool splits a hostname into labels and explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, the parameter list introduces some ambiguity about which input is used, slightly reducing clarity.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
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?
No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral details such as return format, side effects, or whether the tool merely reads data. With no annotations, the description itself should carry this information, but it does not.
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 phrase, front-loaded with the key term 'IANA timezone names.' No unnecessary words or filler are present, making it well-suited to the tool's likely simple purpose.
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 output to expect, how the input parameters relate to the tool's function, or why url/host/json are accepted. Given the confusing parameter set and lack of an output schema, the context is incomplete.
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 descriptions for all four parameters, but three of them (url, host, json) appear unrelated to IANA timezone names and their roles are unexplained. The 'zone' parameter is clear, but the overall parameter semantics are confusing and under-specified.
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 identifies the resource as 'Common IANA timezone names' and hints at a use case ('for clock calls'), but it does not use an explicit verb or fully state what the tool does. The intended action—likely returning a list of timezone names—must be inferred.
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 instead of siblings like timezone or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' offers a faint hint but does not explain conditions, alternatives, or typical scenarios.
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 must carry behavioral transparency on its own. It discloses that the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns counts, but omits error behavior, network expectations, redirects, missing-robots handling, or any side effects.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and states the output restriction. There is no unnecessary verbiage or repetition.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is actually needed, how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt, or what the 'group counts' represent, making the tool effectively unusable from the provided context.
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 clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose: 'url' says 'normalize or cite', 'json' says 'validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name'. These appear copied from other tools and provide no useful meaning for inspecting robots.txt, leaving 'host' ambiguous relative to 'url'.
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 ('public robots.txt'), and the exact return shape ('group counts only'). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary purpose.
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 for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as normalize-url or validate-json. The 'only' qualifier hints at a narrow output, but not at the appropriate use case or conditions.
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 discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is transparent about that behavior. However, it does not disclose that some input parameters (json, zone) appear irrelevant and likely ignored, which is a transparency 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured and free of 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 description is incomplete in the context of the tool's parameters. It does not explain which parameters are required, what each parameter means, or how the output is structured. The presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) further detracts from completeness.
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 description does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema descriptions for parameters (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') are clearly mismatched with the tool's stated purpose, and the description does not clarify the actual parameters or their roles.
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 origin, host, and path for a URL. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like status-catalog 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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when normalization is preferred or any conditions for use.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. While 'catalog' implies a read-only reference, there is no explicit statement about side effects, output format, or any operational details, leaving room for assumptions.
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 and front-loaded, with a single clear sentence. However, the brevity sacrifices needed detail about parameters, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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 given the tool's parameter schema. It fails to explain how parameters relate to the purpose, and the mismatch between description and parameters suggests a serious gap in functional understanding.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to the described purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, and their presence creates 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a specific and identifiable resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose itself is 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. There is no mention of conditions, scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.
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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'current time' and does not describe the output format, error behavior, or whether the unrelated schema parameters are ignored.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits important usage and parameter context.
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 is incomplete: it does not specify the return format, whether the zone parameter is required, or how invalid timezone names are handled.
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 describes each parameter, but the tool description only relates to 'zone'. The presence of url, host, and json parameters is unexplained and potentially misleading for a timezone tool, so the description does not adequately clarify parameter relevance.
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 a specific operation and resource: retrieving the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It also does not clarify that the zone parameter is the relevant input, leaving usage ambiguous.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not disclose output format, precision, or whether the four input parameters affect the result. The schema's unrelated parameters create 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, though it may be too sparse to fully inform the 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?
For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the operation, what the return value looks like, or when this tool should be chosen over timezone/iana-zones.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to returning a UTC timestamp, but the schema itself documents them adequately.
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 clear about the operation and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones, so it is not a full 5.
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 alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
The description discloses that the body is discarded after the check, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify other aspects like error handling or side effects, so transparency is partial.
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 to the point, using two short sentences. However, it omits critical information about the parameters, so while concise, it is not well-structured to convey the full picture.
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 because it does not explain the roles of the url, host, and zone parameters, which appear unrelated to JSON validation. This leaves the tool's behavior and usage ambiguous.
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 description fails to clarify the parameters. It mentions a 'body' but the schema has no 'body' parameter; instead it includes url, host, json, and zone. The json parameter description matches the tool, but url, host, and zone have descriptions unrelated to JSON validation, and the tool description does not explain their relevance.
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: checking whether a body is valid JSON. It uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('valid JSON'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where JSON validation is needed or distinguish it from other validation tools.
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-gbcitationcompatibilitydomain-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 have distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url overlap in URL parsing, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with citation's request classification.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, iana-zones) with verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). 'cc-gb' and 'compatibility' do not follow a clear pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and not overwhelming. The set is broad but each tool serves a distinct utility purpose, so the count feels acceptable.
The tools cover common web/network utilities like URL parsing, time zones, HTTP statuses, and JSON validation, but the domain is not clearly defined. Obvious companions such as a direct HTTP fetch or DNS/WHOIS lookup are missing.