Meaning of HTTP 302.
Most tools are distinct, but some overlap exists (e.g., http-302 vs status-catalog for HTTP status codes, and multiple time-related tools). The purposes are generally clear, though a few like 'citation' and 'compatibility' are vague.
Names are inconsistent: some are single words (timezone, citation), some use hyphens (domain-shape, normalize-url), and one includes a number (http-302). No consistent verb-noun pattern like list_ or create_.
11 tools is within the typical range and not excessive. Each tool adds some utility, though the set feels like a grab bag rather than a focused collection.
The domain is unclear—it mixes URL, HTTP, time, JSON, and unrelated utilities. Many common web functions (e.g., URL parsing, HTML validation) are missing, so the surface does not form a coherent or complete toolkit.
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, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is a useful side-effect guarantee, but it does not mention whether the tool performs network requests, whether it follows redirects, or what failure modes exist.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core verb and outcome. It loses a point because the schema mismatch creates ambiguity that a slightly longer description could have resolved.
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 for a tool with four optional-looking parameters. It does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what output format to expect, especially since no output schema is provided.
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 tool description only concerns URLs, but the schema includes four parameters: url, host, json, and zone. The descriptions for host, json, and zone are unrelated to the stated purpose and appear to be from different tools, making the parameter semantics confusing and internally 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 clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and it distinguishes itself by noting page content is not stored. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog beyond this single caveat.
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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says page content is not stored, which hints at a citation use case, but it does not mention normalize-url, status-catalog, or other siblings, leaving the selection criteria vague.
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?
The privacy note "No identifiers are retained" is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not state side effects, whether inputs are stored, or what happens during classification, and there are no annotations to supplement this.
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 concise and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. The two sentences are short and each adds some information, though the first is too vague to be fully effective.
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 lacks essential context such as what the output looks like, what classification categories exist, and how the four optional parameters are used together. For a multi-parameter tool, this is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions, but they are terse and disconnected from the tool's vague classification purpose. The descriptions do not explain whether parameters are required, how they combine, or what each contributes to the result.
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 only "Show how this request is classified," which is vague and does not define what "classified" means. The tool name and unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not clarify the actual purpose or result.
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 rather than the many siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, or domain-shape. The description does not mention selection criteria or alternatives.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It states a non-destructive action (splitting) and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, but does not disclose any error behaviors, output format, or side effects. The lack of detail about edge cases (e.g., invalid hostnames) reduces transparency.
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 conveys the core functionality without extraneous wording. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 nature of the tool, the description omits crucial context: it does not explain how parameters map to inputs, what output to expect, or how it differs from related tools beyond a single qualifier. The mismatched schema amplifies the incompleteness, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.
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 parameter descriptions are generic and mismatched to the tool's purpose. For instance, 'url' says 'normalize or cite,' 'json' says 'validate,' and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name,' none of which relate to splitting hostnames. The description does not explain how to use these parameters, and the 'host' parameter is not explicitly connected to the action.
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 action ('Split a hostname into labels') and adds a qualifier ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like normalize-url or iana-zones. However, it does not explicitly identify which parameter to use as the hostname input, leaving slight ambiguity.
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 normalize-url or inspect-robots. There is no mention of scenarios where splitting hostnames is preferable or how this tool fits into a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Meaning of HTTP 302.
| 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 is no disclosure of what the tool does, any side effects, or constraints. The description does not explain behavior beyond an ambiguous phrase.
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 the single sentence carries no useful information. It does not earn its place and fails to provide any actionable 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?
The tool lacks any contextual information about its functionality, return values, or relationship to sibling tools. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.
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 provides descriptions for all four parameters, the descriptions are nonsensical for an HTTP 302 tool (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name'). They do not clarify the parameters' actual purpose and are 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 'Meaning of HTTP 302' is a definition rather than a tool action. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog.
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. The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing: no return behavior, no side effects, no relationship to the url/host/json parameters, and no indication of what a 'clock call' is.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits the core verb and behavior, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how to call it. It does neither, and the four optional parameters plus sibling tools are left entirely unexplained.
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. The description adds no parameter meaning and doesn't explain why url, host, and json appear in a tool about IANA zones, but the schema itself documents each parameter clearly.
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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb indicating what the tool actually does. It doesn't say whether it returns, validates, or lists names, and it doesn't distinguish itself 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' is the only contextual hint, but it is undefined and no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
The description discloses the core behavior (fetch and return group counts), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is safe, relying entirely on the absence of annotations.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or fluff. It is concise and directly states the tool's function.
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?
While the description states the output type (group counts), it lacks details on output format, required parameters for the robots.txt operation, and how the parameters relate to the function. The mismatched parameter descriptions further reduce completeness, leaving the agent without essential context.
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 parameter descriptions are entirely mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', both irrelevant to fetching a robots.txt. This misleading information makes the parameters unusable for the described 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 clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (public robots.txt) and the expected output (group counts). It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.
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 sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without usage context.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does not mention side effects, but the operation appears to be a pure normalization function; however, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured 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?
Although the description explains the core action, the schema mismatch with extra parameters (host, json, zone) makes the tool's behavior incomplete. A user cannot tell whether these parameters are required or how they affect the output, so the context is 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 includes parameters like 'json' and 'zone' that are unrelated to URL normalization, and the description does not clarify their purpose. Only 'url' is described in line with the tool's stated function, leaving the others ambiguous.
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 from a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is a specific verb and resource, and it sets clear expectations.
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 over sibling tools like citation or validate-json. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.
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?
No annotations are present and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether the tool performs lookups, validates, or mutates. The catalog nature suggests read-only, but this is not explicit and the unrelated parameters make behavior even less transparent.
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 short, but the brevity is not effective because it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way.
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 mismatch between the description and the parameters, and the lack of any output schema or usage context, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know what arguments to provide or what result to expect.
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 each parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are mismatched with the stated purpose: url is 'to normalize or cite', json is 'to validate', and zone is 'IANA timezone name'. These do not align with a catalog of HTTP status codes, so the parameter semantics are 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource action. It does not specify what the tool does with status codes, and the parameter names (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion.
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 sibling tools like http-302, validate-json, or normalize-url. There is no mention of conditions or alternative tools.
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 full burden. It only states the purpose but does not disclose behavior for invalid timezones, whether it returns a string, or that only the 'zone' parameter is used while url, host, and json are irrelevant. This is a significant gap for a read 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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way; it omits essential details, so while structurally clean, it lacks substance.
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 simple tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or that only zone is used. Given the sibling tools, it should at least mention how it differs from utc-time. Overall insufficient for an agent to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds no meaning about parameters. Critically, it does not clarify that only 'zone' is used; the presence of url, host, and json in the schema suggests they might be relevant, which is misleading. The description fails to disambiguate the effective parameter.
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 states the verb (get current time) and resource (timezone). It distinguishes from siblings like utc-time by specifying IANA named zones. No tautology.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention when it is appropriate or when to prefer another tool. It simply states what it does without any contextual direction.
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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits, side effects, or constraints. With no annotations provided, the description alone should explain what happens when the tool is called, but it only states a result without addressing whether inputs affect behavior or if there are any effects beyond returning a timestamp.
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 with no unnecessary words, but it omits essential context about parameters and usage. It is well-structured in its brevity but lacks the substance needed for a useful tool description.
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 for the tool's actual interface. It does not explain why the input schema contains unrelated fields, what the output format is, or how the tool should be invoked. Given the complexity introduced by mismatched parameters, the description is far from complete.
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 defines four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions completely unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool. The parameter descriptions appear copied from other tools and do not explain how they relate to generating or returning a UTC timestamp, providing no meaningful semantic guidance.
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 timestamp' is brief but vague, lacking a clear verb and not explaining what the tool actually does with inputs. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'validate-json' beyond the name, so purpose clarity is weak.
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 'timezone' or 'validate-json'. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving the agent without any usage 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?
The description mentions that the body is discarded but provides no information about the return value, success/failure indicators, error behavior, or side effects. With no annotations, this lack of detail leaves the tool's behavior largely opaque.
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—two sentences—which is concise, but it omits crucial information needed for correct usage. It is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool and the number of parameters.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how the parameters interact. This is far from complete for a tool with four 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?
The schema provides descriptions for each parameter, but they are minimal and do not explain how url, host, and zone relate to JSON validation. The description only references 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter, leaving parameter roles unclear.
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's core purpose—checking if a body is valid JSON—but it does not clearly specify which parameter represents the body (presumably 'json'). It is distinct from sibling tools but the reference to 'body' is 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description simply states the action without context.
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-302iana-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!
