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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says the body is discarded; it does not explain what happens with url, host, or timezone, nor whether any side effects, network calls, or state changes occur.
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 not verbose, but it is under-specified. It lacks enough structure or detail to convey the tool's actual behavior, making conciseness a drawback rather than a strength.
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?
No output schema, examples, error conditions, or expected result format are provided. Given the confusing parameter set and absence of behavioral details, an agent cannot confidently determine how to call or interpret this tool.
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 parameters but are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. url, host, and timezone appear unrelated to validating JSON, and no explanation connects them to the operation. The json parameter is described clearly, but the overall parameter set is incoherent.
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 clear action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') but the resource and relevant parameters are confusing: the body is not named as a parameter, while unrelated parameters like url, host, and timezone are present. This makes it unclear what exactly is being validated.
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, nor about prerequisites, expected inputs, or context. The description offers no explicit or implicit usage direction.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs and can return overlapping fields, while compatibility is vaguely described. The remaining tools are mostly distinct, but the URL-related overlap could cause misselection.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern—e.g., inspect-robots and normalize-url are verb-first, while citation and utc-time are noun-like. Names such as cc-in and compatibility do not clearly signal their action.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, the mix of country, URL, time, and JSON utilities suggests a broader toolkit than the server name implies.
As a set of read-only metadata and validation helpers, it covers URL, HTTP, robots, time, JSON, and a single country lookup. The domain is not clearly defined, and only one country record is exposed, so some workflows may lack a matching tool.