Contrast ratio for two hex colors
Several tools overlap semantically: citation and normalize-url both return URL components, while timezone and utc-time both provide time data. Other names like compatibility are too vague to distinguish from status-catalog without reading descriptions.
There is no consistent naming pattern: some are bare nouns (citation, timezone), some are adjective compounds (contrast-ok), and some are verb phrases (normalize-url, validate-json). The mix of hyphenated styles and arbitrary nouns makes the set feel chaotic.
Eleven tools is not excessive by itself, but the set is a grab bag of unrelated utilities (URLs, time, JSON, contrast, robots) that do not cohere under the server name 'Contrast ratio for two hex colors'. The count only fits if the actual purpose is a generic utility toolkit, which is not stated.
For the stated contrast-ratio purpose, a single tool is sufficient, but the inclusion of nine unrelated tools suggests the surface is not focused or complete for any single domain. If treated as a general utility set, obvious common tools (e.g., string/base64 operations) are missing, and there is no update/delete lifecycle.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is a privacy trait, but it omits other important behaviors such as network requests, error handling, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure, scoring 2.
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 sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a relevant caveat. It is appropriately concise, earning a 5.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, error handling, or usage context. It only gives a high-level purpose, so it scores 2.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. For example, it is unclear why 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are inputs when the purpose is to return host, scheme, and status for a URL. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it scores 2.
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 it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, using a specific verb and resource. The added note that page content is not stored clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url, so it scores 4 rather than 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful privacy behavior ('No identifiers are retained'), but it does not explain what classification means, whether the operation has side effects, or what the response contains.
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 compact and front-loaded with a privacy note, and every sentence adds something. However, for a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, the text is under-specified rather than 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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain how url, host, json, or zone are used or what 'classified' returns. An agent cannot confidently predict invocation behavior or interpret results from this description alone.
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%: every parameter has a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides the necessary semantics.
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 provides a verb and object: 'Show how this request is classified.' This is a genuine purpose, not a tautology of the tool name, but it is vague because 'request' and 'classified' are undefined. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as domain-shape, normalize-url, 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 given about when to use this tool versus any alternative. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions mentioned, so an agent must guess the intended use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Contrast ratio for two hex colors
| 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 describing side effects, permissions, or safety. The description claims a contrast-ratio calculation, but the input schema suggests URL, host, JSON, and timezone handling, which is contradictory and unexplained.
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 a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It conveys a rough idea without sacrificing brevity, though it lacks structural clarity.
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 description and input schema are severely mismatched. A contrast-ratio tool should have two color parameters, but none exist, and the listed parameters point to entirely different operations, making the tool incomplete and confusing.
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 properties (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions that are entirely unrelated to 'two hex colors.' No parameters for color values are present, so the schema does not align with the stated purpose.
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 tool as computing a contrast ratio for two hex colors, but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb or resource. It fails to mention that the input schema contains unrelated parameters, making the actual purpose 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include unrelated functions, but the description gives no context for selecting contrast-ok.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that WHOIS and ownership data are not included, which is a useful behavioral boundary, but it omits any statement about side effects, errors, or read-only 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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome.
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 sparse for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema. It fails to indicate which parameter to supply, how the parameters interact, or what kind of result to expect.
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 there is 100% schema description coverage, the parameter descriptions are mismatched with the stated purpose (e.g., 'json' says validate, 'timezone' says IANA name). The description does not clarify how url, host, json, and timezone relate to splitting a hostname.
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 uses a specific verb ('split') and resource ('hostname') and identifies the output ('labels'). The added 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from domain-information 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 usage is implied: use when you need to split a hostname into labels. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it state 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.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how it handles invalid input, or any side effects. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too ambiguous to inform an agent about 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides minimal useful information and is not front-loaded with the most critical details. The sentence is vague and does not help an agent decide whether to use the tool.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the only source of context. It is far from complete: it does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the output format is, or any edge cases. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based solely on the description and schema.
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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like url, host, or json relate to the stated purpose of providing IANA timezone names. The description is actively misleading because the parameters seem unrelated to the described purpose, reducing the score below the baseline.
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 vague purpose: 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.' It implies the tool provides a list of timezone names, but it does not specify the tool's actual operation (e.g., whether it returns a static list, validates a zone, or converts time). It fails to align with the input schema, which includes url, host, json, and zone parameters, creating confusion about what the tool actually does. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.
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. The description mentions 'for clock calls' but does not explain when an agent should choose this over sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it returns only group counts, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't mention error handling, what happens if robots.txt is missing, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unaddressed.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and is easy to read.
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 appears simple, but the description lacks essential context: it doesn't define what 'group counts' means, doesn't indicate which parameter corresponds to the robots.txt URL, and doesn't explain why the other parameters (json, zone) exist. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete and likely to mislead an agent into incorrect invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage for parameters, which normally warrants a baseline of 3. However, the tool description doesn't explain how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt. The parameters include url, host, json, and zone, but only url (and possibly host) seem relevant, and the url description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') is generic and doesn't clarify its role here. The description fails to add meaning or guidance beyond the schema, making it insufficient for an agent to know which parameters to use.
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 verb ('fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and an outcome ('return group counts only'). It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json', which is a minor gap.
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. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that you need group counts from a robots.txt, but no explicit context is provided.
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 explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped, providing insight into the tool's output behavior. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 packs the essential information without any fluff or irrelevant 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 lacks context about the additional parameters (host, json, zone) that appear in the schema. While the core function is explained, the presence of irrelevant inputs leaves a completeness gap that could confuse an agent.
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 clarify the purpose of the parameters, and the schema descriptions for 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are clearly mismatched with a URL-normalization tool. The 'url' parameter description is partially relevant, but the others actively confuse the tool's purpose.
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 function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL. It is specific and uses a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('URL'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like timezone 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?
The description implies when to use it: whenever a user needs to extract origin, host, and path from a URL. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the intended use case is obvious from the wording.
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 must disclose behavior. It only states the tool is a 'short catalog,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not specify output format, whether parameters filter the catalog, or any side effects. The description is silent on how the tool behaves with inputs, leaving agents to guess.
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, sparse sentence. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. The lack of structure or additional context means the description does not earn its place; it is too brief to be useful.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, the expected output, or any constraints. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional information.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter has a basic explanation. The tool description, however, adds nothing about how these parameters relate to the catalog. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' indicates the tool provides a catalog of status codes, which is a clear resource. However, it does not explain how the four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used, leaving the tool's exact function ambiguous. It does distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, but the lack of parameter context undermines 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task, especially since the parameters seem unrelated to a status-code catalog.
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, and the description only mentions the result (current time) without disclosing any behavior such as error handling, side effects, or permissions. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) further obscures the actual 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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured 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 is minimal and lacks crucial context: it does not specify the return format, behavior for invalid zones, or how the unrelated parameters (url, host, json) fit into the tool. No output schema is provided, and the overall picture 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?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but only 'zone' aligns with the tool's purpose. The descriptions for url, host, and json appear unrelated, and the tool description adds no explanation for them. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but no extra meaning is added.
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 current time for a named IANA timezone, which is a specific and distinct function. It implies a 'get' action and differentiates from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones.
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 explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing zones. The usage context is implied but not stated.
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?
There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint) and the description only states output without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or whether parameters are optional or ignored. Minimal behavioral info is provided.
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 fluff. It is well-structured for readability, though it lacks 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 incomplete: it does not explain the role of any parameters, whether they are required, or how they affect the output. The mismatch between the tool name/description and the parameter names leaves the tool's behavior largely undefined.
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 generic description (e.g., 'URL to normalize or cite') but these descriptions do not connect to the tool's apparent purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. The meanings are unclear and likely copied from other tools, failing to explain how they are 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the primary function, but the presence of four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does or accepts.
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 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description lacks any contextual cues for selecting this tool.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'The body is discarded,' which implies a side effect, but it does not describe the return value (e.g., boolean, error message), error handling, or whether the tool has any other effects. The description is too thin to fully inform an agent about 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential usage and behavioral details, which is a structural trade-off but not a verbosity issue.
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 simple validation tool, the description omits critical information: the return format, how to handle invalid JSON, and the relevance of the other three schema parameters. Without an output schema, the agent cannot know what to expect. The description also fails to connect this tool to the sibling set, leaving the agent to guess when it should be used.
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 all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the term 'body' to refer to the JSON input, but it does not clarify which parameter that corresponds to, nor does it add meaning to the url, host, or zone parameters. The added value is minimal but not misleading.
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 function: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (body/JSON), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with URLs, timezones, or domains. However, it does not explicitly map 'body' to the 'json' parameter in the schema, leaving slight ambiguity about which input is 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a URL or specific context, nor does it state when not to use it. The description only says what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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.
citationcompatibilitycontrast-okdomain-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!
Developer utilities: color conversion, WCAG contrast, timestamps, UUIDs, and hashing.
Convert colours between hex, RGB, HSL, OKLCH and CMYK, and compute harmonies.
