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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only covers the fetch-and-count behavior. It does not reveal that parameters like json, zone, and host appear unrelated to the robots check, nor does it explain what happens on fetch failure, redirects, or missing robots.txt files.
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 states the action and the constrained output, with no wasted words. The brevity is efficient, though it sacrifices needed usage and parameter guidance.
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 tool with four parameters, a described parameter conflict, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameters are actually used, what the return structure looks like, or how failures are handled.
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 descriptions exist, they conflict with the stated purpose: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which suggests a citation tool rather than a robots.txt fetcher. The description does not clarify how the four parameters relate to fetching robots.txt or producing group counts.
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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and a precise output ('group counts only'), which clearly distinguishes the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools or acknowledge that the schema hints at a broader normalization/validation role.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like citation or validation tools. The url parameter's phrase 'normalize or cite' hints at broader uses, but the description never states them, leaving the agent to infer when robots.txt inspection is appropriate.
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.
Several tools overlap in the URL/HTTP space, especially citation and normalize-url both returning host/scheme information, with inspect-robots and status-catalog adding to the confusion. The timezone tools are distinct, but compatibility is too vague to place, and the overall set makes tool selection ambiguous.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-object commands like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are bare nouns like citation and timezone, or noun phrases like status-catalog and iana-zones. There is no consistent verb_noun convention or recognizable family pattern.
For a server advertised as 'Hex color to RGB,' 11 tools is far more than needed, and only hex-rgb actually matches that purpose. While 11 is not an extreme number in general, the unrelated utilities make the server feel bloated and mis-scoped.
The set has no coherent domain to assess against, spanning URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, robots.txt, and color conversion without covering any one area deeply. For the stated hex-to-RGB purpose it is technically complete, but for the apparent mixed utility scope there are clear gaps such as timezone conversion or URL encoding.