Public ISO 3166-1 record for JP.
Public ISO 3166-1 record for JP.
| 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 whether the tool has side effects, requires permissions, or is strictly read-only. The behavior regarding how inputs are processed (e.g., discarded JSON) is not explained.
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 directly states the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately minimal and to the point.
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 lacks essential context about how the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to retrieving the ISO record. No output schema or examples are provided, leaving an agent without enough information to correctly invoke the 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?
Each parameter has a description, but these descriptions are generic and disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of retrieving an ISO record. For example, 'json' is for validation and 'zone' for timezone, which do not align with the purpose, leaving ambiguity about their intended use here.
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 public ISO 3166-1 record for JP, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explain how the input parameters relate to this purpose, which slightly reduces 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json, timezone, or domain-shape. The description lacks any conditions or context for 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.
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 only behavioral note is 'Page content is not stored.' This gives minimal insight into side effects, such as network requests, caching, or how the json and zone parameters are handled. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 to the point, but its brevity contributes to ambiguity. It does not waste words, yet it fails to convey essential information about the tool's operation.
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's parameters and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the output format is, or why certain parameters (json, zone) exist. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this 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?
Each parameter has a description, but they appear mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', which are not obviously related to returning host, scheme, or HTTP status. The descriptions add 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 states a clear verb and object ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but it is ambiguous how the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone) map to this purpose. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or edge cases that would help an agent choose 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy note, but omits what the classification does, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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 two short sentences, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with four parameters and no other context, it does not convey necessary information efficiently; it reads as a placeholder.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'classification' means, what input combinations are valid, what output is expected, or any usage constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, each with a clear definition (URL, host, JSON, timezone). The description adds no relational meaning between these parameters and the classification concept, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the 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 phrase 'Show how this request is classified' is vague — it does not specify the resource, action, or what classification refers to. It does not tie to the parameters (URL, host, JSON, zone) or clarify the domain of compatibility. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from siblings like 'citation' or 'domain-shape'.
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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.
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?
The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or data handling practices. Although the operation seems read-only, there is no explicit statement, and the parameter description for 'json' mentions 'discarded after the check,' which introduces ambiguity about side effects not covered in the main 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 main description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the operation. It has a clear subject and verb, though the phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a slight tangential note. The structure is simple and 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?
The description is incomplete for practical use because the parameter definitions are contradictory and unrelated to the stated purpose. A user would be unsure which parameters to provide and how they relate to the hostname splitting, especially with irrelevant fields like 'json' and 'zone' present.
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 mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as an 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' 'json' as 'JSON text to validate,' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name,' all of which are irrelevant to splitting a hostname. Only 'host' (Public hostname) seems plausible, but the overall schema provides no meaningful guidance and appears to contain copy-paste errors from other tools.
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 ('split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname), and the clarification 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds useful context. However, it is slightly vague about the output format, but the core purpose is understandable.
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 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json' from the sibling list. The description does not mention criteria for selection or any prerequisites, leaving the user to infer usage.
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?
There are no annotations and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what kind of response it produces. The behavior is completely unspecified.
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 short, single phrase with no redundant wording or filler. It is concise, though perhaps too terse to convey the tool's function effectively.
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 lacks essential context: what action the tool performs, what inputs are expected for its core purpose, what the output format is, and how it relates to the sibling tools. It is not sufficient for an agent to decide when or how to call it.
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?
Although every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions seem disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of IANA timezone names. Only 'zone' is plausibly relevant; 'url', 'host', and 'json' appear unrelated and their descriptions do not clarify their role in this tool.
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 (IANA timezone names) and context (clock calls), but it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does with these names. It is unclear whether the tool returns, validates, or lists timezone names.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. No usage conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as network access, side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque beyond the vague 'fetch' action.
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 core action, but it omits essential context and clarification. It is short but not sufficiently informative.
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 for practical use: no output schema is defined, the parameter meanings are unclear, and there is no explanation of what 'group counts' refers to. The description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to invoke 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 schema descriptions are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). These do not relate to fetching a robots.txt file, providing no meaningful semantic value for the 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 states a clear action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') but the parameter names (url, host, json, zone) do not align with that purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like timezone 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or context in which 'inspect-robots' would be appropriate.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped and that the tool returns origin, host, and path. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it does not address error handling or edge cases.
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 primary action and outcome. It consists of two short sentences that directly state what the tool does, with no unnecessary words or filler.
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 explains the core functionality but does not address the discrepancy with the input schema, which includes parameters unrelated to URL normalization. This leaves the context incomplete, as a user would be confused about why host, json, and zone are accepted. The lack of alignment between description and schema reduces 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 add meaningful context to the input schema. While it implies that 'url' is the main input, the schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that are not explained or reconciled with the tool's stated purpose. The description fails to clarify their relevance, leaving the parameter semantics unclear and inconsistent.
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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'). It also specifies that query and fragment are dropped, making it distinct from sibling tools like validate-json or 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 when to use this tool (when needing URL normalization), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The intended use is inferable from the name and description, but no direct guidance about when not to use it is provided.
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, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'catalog' weakly implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what it returns.
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 and contains no structural detail. While it is concise, it omits the verb, invocation context, and parameter relationships, making the brevity more of a limitation 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?
There is no output schema, no parameter-to-purpose explanation, no example usage, and no mention of what the catalog contains beyond 'common HTTP status codes.' The tool is not sufficiently complete for an agent to understand how to invoke it or interpret its results.
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 descriptions for url, host, json, and zone, but the tool description does not explain how any of these parameters relate to retrieving HTTP status codes. The mismatch between the described purpose and the listed parameters leaves the agent without enough context to populate them correctly.
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 a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is distinct from the sibling tools. However, it uses no verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'provides') and does not state what action the agent is expected to perform.
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 such as validate-json, normalize-url, or utc-time. The description gives no context for selecting status-catalog in a workflow.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool returns and does not explain behavior for invalid zones, whether the url/host/json parameters are ignored, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap even for a simple read-only tool.
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 with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the limited information it provides.
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 too thin. It does not explain how the four schema parameters relate to the timezone lookup, what the output looks like, or how this tool differs from utc-time. An agent cannot confidently determine whether url, host, or json are needed or ignored.
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 only mentions the zone concept and does not clarify how url, host, and json relate to the tool, which is confusing given the schema lists them as optional parameters. The schema's own descriptions are clear, but the description adds no extra meaning.
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 behavior: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic clock tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling utc-time or iana-zones 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 phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies this tool is for zone-specific lookups, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of utc-time or iana-zones, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does not disclose whether parameters are ignored, whether there are any side effects, error behaviors, or edge cases. The mismatch between the tool name/purpose and the supplied parameters makes the behavior even more opaque.
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 free of unnecessary wording. However, it is a minimal noun phrase rather than a well-structured functional description, and it omits necessary context about parameters.
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 low complexity, the description should be complete, but it is not. It fails to explain why the tool accepts unrelated parameters, what arguments are actually needed, what format the timestamp is returned in, or how this tool differs from the sibling timezone tool. This makes the tool contextually 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 lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but these appear entirely unrelated to a 'Current UTC timestamp' tool. The description adds no clarification about how or whether these parameters affect the output, leaving an agent unable to determine what to pass or expect.
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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's basic purpose and implies it returns the current UTC time, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like timezone. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase, and the presence of unrelated parameters makes the intended function slightly less crisp.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or validate-json. The description only states what the tool returns and does not mention when it should be preferred, what inputs are expected, or when not to use it.
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 mentions the body is discarded but does not explain what happens with the url, host, or zone parameters. It also does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, returns errors, or has side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 and contains no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the ambiguity around 'body' and the unrelated parameters could have been clarified without much extra text.
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 simple in concept, but the return value is not specified (e.g., boolean, error message), and the presence of unrelated parameters makes the intended input unclear. This leaves important gaps for an agent trying to use 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 'json' parameter is adequately described, but 'url', 'host', and 'zone' have descriptions that appear copied from other tools and are irrelevant to JSON validation. While every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are misleading and do not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON and discards it, which aligns with the tool name. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous and the input schema includes unrelated parameters like url, host, and zone, so the true purpose 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
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-jpcitationcompatibilitydomain-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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose (country code, URL manipulation, timezone, JSON validation, etc.) with no overlapping functionality, so there is no ambiguity in selecting the right tool.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are noun-only (e.g., 'cc-jp', 'iana-zones') while others are verb-noun (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'). The style is uniform but the grammar is mixed.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable, but the collection feels like a random assortment of utilities rather than a focused feature set, making the size slightly unjustified.
There is no coherent domain to evaluate completeness against. The tools span unrelated areas (ISO, HTTP, timezones, JSON, robots), so the set is incomplete for any single purpose and lacks a clear scope.