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?
The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an error on invalid JSON) or whether validation is syntactic only, leaving key behavior undisclosed.
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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the side-effect note efficiently, making it appropriately concise.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to support correct invocation. It does not say which parameter to supply, whether any others are needed, or what the agent should expect in the response, so the tool is incomplete for reliable 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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, many parameter descriptions (url, host, zone) are clearly unrelated to JSON validation and come from other tool contexts, which is misleading. The description itself does not clarify that only the 'json' parameter is relevant or how 'body' maps to it, so it fails to compensate for the schema mismatch.
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 action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a clear resource (a JSON body). It is not a tautology and provides enough to understand the tool's core function, but 'body' is not explicitly linked to the 'json' parameter, leaving slight ambiguity.
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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, so the agent receives no context for selecting it.
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 are distinct, but several overlap around URLs and time: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time overlap in purpose. The compatibility tool is especially vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names are mostly lowercase and hyphenated, but the set mixes noun-style names like citation, timezone, and status-catalog with verb-style names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count on its own, but the set feels scattershot relative to the server name 'ISO country US,' which implies a focused country-data service. Only one tool actually relates to the country domain, while the rest span unrelated web, URL, time, and JSON utilities.
As a collection of lightweight, privacy-oriented utilities, the surface is reasonably broad. However, the country-data aspect is severely thin with only cc-us, and there are notable gaps like DNS or HTTP header inspection if this is meant to be a general web-utility server.