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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a public resource and returns only group counts, but it does not explain behavior on missing robots.txt, redirects, network errors, rate limits, or output format. The presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) also creates confusion about 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it less appropriately sized than it could be.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain which parameters are required, what the response looks like, how errors are handled, or why unrelated parameters like json and zone exist in the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanation. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameters are relevant to fetching robots.txt. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') appear unrelated to the stated purpose, and the tool description does not resolve this 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 verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and the output: 'return group counts only.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or clarify what 'group counts' means.
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or related sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is for robots.txt inspection, but no context is given about when it is preferred over other 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.
Several tools operate on URLs (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, compatibility) with overlapping inputs but different outputs, and hour-utc vs utc-time are close in purpose. Descriptions mostly clarify the distinction, but an agent could easily select the wrong URL-analysis tool without deeper inspection.
Names mix single nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated compounds that alternate verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) and noun-first (status-catalog, domain-shape). No consistent verb_noun or action-object pattern is present.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable count range, but the set spans time, URL parsing, HTTP status, and JSON validation with no unifying scope. Several tools feel like a grab-bag rather than a focused server, so the count is not fully earned.
The time tools lack basic conversions or formatting options, and the URL tools have no clear workflow for fetching, parsing, and classifying content. For the apparent 'web/URL utilities plus time' scope, there are significant gaps that would force agents to work around missing functionality.