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 mentions that the body is discarded, which is a behavioral detail, but it does not explain side effects, error handling, or the fate of other parameters. With no annotations, this 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?
The description is short and to the point, but the term 'body' is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways. It is concise but not optimally clear.
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 mismatched schema and the lack of explanation about which parameters are actually used, the description is incomplete. The tool's behavior with respect to the extraneous parameters is unexplained.
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 parameter descriptions are misleading. Three parameters (url, host, zone) have descriptions that belong to other tools, while only 'json' has a relevant description. This actively confuses rather than clarifies.
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 verb 'Check' and the object 'whether a body is valid JSON', which is a specific action. However, it does not explicitly define what 'body' refers to, 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools.
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 target distinct operations—text counting, JSON validation, robots inspection, time utilities—and descriptions clarify the differences. The main risk is citation versus normalize-url, since both describe URL components, and timezone versus utc-time could occasionally cause misselection.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase, but they mix styles: verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json, noun compounds like char-count and status-catalog, and single nouns like citation and compatibility. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 11 tools, the set is well within the ideal range and each utility addresses a separate use case. No obvious redundant or filler tools are present.
The surface covers text validation, URL inspection, robots, time, and HTTP status reasonably well for a privacy-focused utility server. Missing conveniences like timezone conversion or URL encoding are minor and can be worked around.