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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the body is discarded, but does not disclose return values, error behavior, whether a network call is involved, or how the other parameters (url, host, zone) are treated.
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 only two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the side-effect second. There is no redundant or irrelevant wording, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, what url/host/zone are for, or what result the agent should expect after validation.
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 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The description fails to clarify why url, host, and zone exist, and it uses 'body' without explicitly mapping to the `json` parameter, but the schema itself provides individual parameter descriptions.
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 ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a specific resource. It is not a tautology and is easy to understand. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like normalize-json or explain that the 'body' refers to the `json` parameter, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent gets no help choosing between validate-json and related tools such as normalize-json or xml-to-json.
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.