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?
There are no annotations to clarify behavior, and the description is misleading. It claims the body is discarded, yet the schema includes four parameters with no explanation of how they are used or what side effects occur. The mismatch between description and schema obscures 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 very short, but its brevity works against it because it omits essential information and includes no structural cues. It is concise in word count but fails to provide a coherent or useful explanation of 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 description is incomplete given the schema and sibling context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles errors, why the extra input fields exist, or how it differs from related tools. The lack of clarity makes it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 every parameter has a description, three of the four descriptions (url, host, zone) are clearly unrelated to validating JSON. Only the 'json' parameter description aligns with the stated purpose, leaving most parameters semantically inconsistent.
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 action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') but is undermined by the input schema, which includes unrelated parameters like url, host, and zone. This mismatch makes the tool's true 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 normalize-url, timezone, and utc-time, but the description gives no indication of how validate-json relates to them or when it should be preferred.
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.