Meaning of HTTP 301.
Most tools are distinct, but some overlap or ambiguity exists: http-301 and status-catalog both relate to HTTP status codes, while citation and compatibility have vague names that could confuse agents. Others like domain-shape and normalize-url are clearly separate.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use hyphenated noun phrases (domain-shape, http-301, iana-zones, utc-time), while others are single words (citation, compatibility, timezone) or adjective-noun combos (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). No consistent verb_noun pattern exists.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a web/URL utility server. It is not overly large or sparse, and each tool generally serves a distinct utility purpose.
The set covers URL parsing, HTTP status, time zones, JSON validation, and robots.txt, but lacks broader HTTP operations like request execution or response handling. Some tools seem peripheral (e.g., citation, compatibility), making the overall coverage feel slightly uneven.
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. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'Page content is not stored.' This hints that it doesn't fetch/store full page content, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether it makes network requests, potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. For a tool that likely performs network I/O, this is a moderate gap.
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—two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds one relevant behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite being simple, the tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain how they are used and what the return looks like. It fails to mention the 'json' and 'zone' parameters at all, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., a JSON object with host, scheme, status). The lack of usage guidance further reduces completeness. An agent would struggle to know how to invoke this tool correctly, especially given the odd parameters.
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 schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'url' parameter is the main input for retrieving host/scheme/status, but it doesn't clarify why 'json' and 'zone' parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have better connected the parameters to the stated function.
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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a clear verb+resource+output combo, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like normalize-url (which likely just normalizes) and http-301 (which focuses on redirects). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself from all siblings.
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 the siblings. The description only says what it does, not when to prefer it over normalize-url, status-catalog, or others. The only hint is that it returns host, scheme, and status, which implies a specific use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that identifiers are not retained, but does not disclose what the tool actually does, its side effects, or return 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 with no waste, but it is under-specified. It is concise but does not provide enough information to justify its brevity.
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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides almost no information about behavior, return value, or how the parameters are used. It is inadequate for an agent to call it 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?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what 'classified' means or which resource it acts on. It is vague and does not differentiate from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url.
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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only mentions the core split operation and the absence of WHOIS/ownership data. It does not disclose return format, error cases, or whether the input is a full URL or bare hostname.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action immediately and is appropriately concise for a simple utility.
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 not complete enough for correct invocation because the input schema contains irrelevant and misleading parameter descriptions. The tool's actual required inputs and output format are not adequately explained.
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 parameter descriptions are clearly mismatched for this tool: 'url' is described as an HTTPS URL to normalize, 'json' as JSON to validate, and 'zone' as an IANA timezone name. Only 'host' loosely aligns with 'split a hostname into labels,' leaving the agent unable to determine correct parameter usage.
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 primary function: splitting a hostname into labels. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic URL or JSON tools, though it could be slightly clearer about whether it accepts full domains or subdomains.
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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a boundary, but it does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool in practice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Meaning of HTTP 301.
| 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 and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or return format. Without annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 brief but lacks structure and substance. While not wordy, the brevity comes at the cost of 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 description is far too short to provide adequate context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool. It lacks any mention of input expectations, output, or edge cases.
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 explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to HTTP 301. The schema descriptions appear mismatched (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') and offer no clarity.
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 'Meaning of HTTP 301' is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase, and fails to specify the tool's action or resource. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like status-catalog or normalize-url.
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 such as status-catalog for HTTP status codes or normalize-url for URL handling.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, destructiveness, or output characteristics. The tool could be expected to merely list names, but nothing confirms this or explains what happens with the provided parameters.
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 it sacrifices necessary detail. While it is concise, it fails to convey the tool's actual functionality, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.
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 sibling tools and the schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain how parameters like url, host, or json relate to timezone names, and there is no output schema. The tool's behavior is largely unspecified.
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 parameters include url, host, json, and zone, but the description only mentions timezone names. The descriptions are generic and do not align clearly with the stated purpose of 'IANA timezone names for clock calls'. The schema provides descriptions, but they are semantically disconnected from the tool's apparent function.
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 says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but does not clearly state what the tool actually does. It does not specify whether it returns a list, validates a name, or performs some other operation. The purpose is ambiguous and not well differentiated from sibling tools 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'fetch' without noting network access, potential latency, failure modes, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. It does not describe side effects or limitations.
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 tool description is concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to convey the main action and output. The schema descriptions are also brief, but their brevity comes at the cost of correctness.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description does not clarify what 'group counts' means or how parameters like url and host relate to fetching robots.txt. The mismatched parameter descriptions leave the agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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 the schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are clearly mismatched copy-paste text: 'url' says 'normalize or cite', 'json' says 'validate', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name'. These descriptions do not add relevant meaning for inspecting robots.txt and actively mislead an agent.
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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a clear output ('return group counts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It is slightly vague about what 'group counts' refers to, but the core purpose is understandable.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or citation. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable.
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 mentions that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral detail, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error handling. The lack of annotations and the mismatched schema further obscure the tool's 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 itself is concise and well-structured, but the overall tool definition is cluttered by the irrelevant schema parameters. The mismatch between the description and schema detracts from the 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?
Given the simple purpose of URL normalization, the description lacks essential context such as expected input format, output schema, and handling of invalid URLs. The presence of unrelated parameters further reduces completeness.
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 includes four parameters, but only 'url' aligns with the described purpose; 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are completely irrelevant to URL normalization. The parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's function, making it highly confusing.
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 while dropping query and fragment. It is specific enough to understand the primary action, though it does not detail the output format or structure.
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 its siblings like citation, compatibility, or timezone. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or alternatives to consider.
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?
The description does not disclose any side effects or whether the tool is read-only; annotations are absent.
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 fails to convey the tool's functionality effectively; it is concise but not clear.
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 to have parameters that belong to other tools, and the description does not fill the gap, leaving the tool's overall function 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?
The schema descriptions for the parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'url' for normalizing or citing), and the tool description does not clarify their role, making them 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 states the tool provides a catalog of HTTP status codes, but does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used, leaving 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 the sibling tools, such as validate-json or normalize-url.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is returned but does not mention side effects (or lack thereof), error handling for invalid zone names, or that it is a read-only operation.
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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the schema contains three irrelevant parameters that the description does not address. A complete description would clarify that url, host, and json are unused, and would note error behavior for invalid IANA zone names.
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 lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) but only 'zone' is relevant to this tool; the other three appear to be copy-paste artifacts from sibling tools. The description adds no clarification about which parameters are actually used and which are ignored.
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 time in a named IANA timezone' clearly identifies the tool's function—returning the current time for a specified timezone—and distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time (UTC time) and iana-zones (zone listing). The verb is implicit but unambiguous.
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 closely related siblings such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not state conditions under which this tool is preferred or alternatives to consider.
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?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, permissions, or return format, the behavioral transparency is minimal. For a simple read-only time tool, this might be acceptable, but the schema mismatch raises concerns about unstated 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for a simple 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. It fails to explain why the schema includes unrelated parameters, leaving the agent to wonder about their purpose or whether they are optional. This incoherence undermines completeness.
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 includes parameters (url, host, json, zone) that are entirely irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose of returning UTC time. Their descriptions suggest they belong to other tools, making the parameter semantics misleading and confusing.
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 time.' clearly states the tool's purpose with a verb and resource. It is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'timezone' tool, which is acceptable.
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 'validate-json'. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent without sufficient direction.
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, the description carries full burden. It does disclose that the input is discarded, which is helpful, but it does not explain what happens on valid vs invalid JSON (return type), nor does it resolve the mismatch between 'body' and the 'json' parameter. The unrelated parameters suggest possible side effects or alternative modes that are not described.
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. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of necessary 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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a schema with four unrelated parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of url, host, and zone, the return format, or how to invoke it correctly. An agent would be uncertain whether to provide a 'json' parameter or a 'body' as hinted.
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 and already explain 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Worse, the description's 'body' does not map to any parameter, and the presence of url, host, and zone is unexplained, leaving the agent unsure which parameter to pass.
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 if valid JSON) and that the body is discarded, but the term 'body' is ambiguous against the schema's 'json' parameter. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) further muddies what the tool actually does, making it less distinct.
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 any sibling, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer that it is for JSON validation, but there is no explicit context or alternative routing.
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.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapehttp-301iana-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!
Meaning of HTTP 401.
