Meaning of HTTP 307.
The tools fall into loose clusters: URL inspection (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape), HTTP status (http-307, status-catalog), and time (timezone, utc-time, iana-zones). Descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could hesitate between citation/normalize-url for URL metadata and between timezone/utc-time for current time.
Some names use verb_noun style (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun compounds (citation, timezone, status-catalog, http-307). The hyphenated lowercase compounds are readable, but there is no single predictable naming convention across the set.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server bundles unrelated web/HTTP and timezone utilities without a clear central domain. The number is reasonable for a mixed utility server, yet it feels inflated for the apparent 'HTTP 307' identity.
For an HTTP/redirect-focused server, the set lacks redirect-following, header inspection, or actual request lifecycle tools. Even as a general web utility set, there are significant gaps such as URL encoding/decoding and timezone conversion, so agents will hit dead ends.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it omits other important behaviors such as making an HTTP request, possible network failures, external side effects, or whether content is only read transiently.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a meaningful boundary. Every word 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?
The description only addresses URL citation behavior, while the schema exposes four parameters spanning multiple concerns (url, host, json, zone). Without an output schema and with no annotations, this mismatch leaves the full range of tool behavior 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?
The input schema covers all parameter meanings with 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra parameter context and does not mention the json or zone parameters, but the schema already documents these adequately.
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 a specific action ('Return') and a concrete resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'). The added note 'Page content is not stored' clarifies that this is not a content-capture tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools that might also inspect URLs.
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. The 'Page content is not stored' note hints at a privacy angle but does not state conditions, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons, leaving an agent to infer usage context.
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 phrase 'No identifiers are retained' provides a meaningful privacy guarantee, and 'Show' implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, the description should also disclose input handling and output behavior; it only partially does so, leaving the classification result undefined.
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 appropriately concise. One vague sentence does not earn its place for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema.
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, so the description must explain what the classification result looks like and how to interpret it. It does not state the classification criteria, nor the relationship among the four optional parameters, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool or understand its response.
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 extra meaning about how url, host, json, and zone relate or which parameters are alternatives versus combinable, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.
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 never defines what classification means, what categories exist, or what 'compatibility' refers to. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like citation or domain-shape, and an agent cannot tell what this tool actually determines.
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 for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only hints come from parameter names, which is not sufficient for routing.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the basic parse operation and one exclusion, but it does not describe the output format, failure behavior, or whether any network or external lookups are performed beyond the stated absence of WHOIS data.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The core behavior and a key limitation are stated upfront.
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 definition is too thin for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose, what result an agent should expect, or why parameters like json and zone are present.
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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is individually documented. However, the tool description does not clarify how 'hostname' maps to the host parameter or whether url is also accepted, leaving some ambiguity among the four optional parameters.
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 and resource: it splits a hostname into labels and explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data. This makes the core purpose clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as normalize-url, which also works with hostnames and URLs.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The only contextual hint is the negative clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which says what the tool does not provide rather than when an agent should choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Meaning of HTTP 307.
| 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 must fully disclose behavior, but it only names a topic. It does not state whether the tool returns text, ignores all parameters, performs a lookup, or has side effects.
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 but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks a verb, any structural guidance, and any mention of inputs or outputs.
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, 'Meaning of HTTP 307' is far too incomplete. It should explain what the tool returns, which parameters matter, and how it relates to status-catalog.
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 schema coverage is 100%, the description does not connect any of the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) to the purpose of explaining HTTP 307. An agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant or whether the call should be made with no arguments.
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 307' essentially restates the tool name 'http-307' without adding an action verb or clarifying what the tool returns. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'status-catalog' tool, which likely also covers HTTP status meanings.
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 about when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as status-catalog, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description provides no contextual signal for selecting this tool.
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 discloses no behavior at all. It does not state whether the tool returns a list, validates input, performs a lookup, or has side effects.
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 free of fluff, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It reads as a label, not a functional 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description is far too minimal. It omits the tool's operation, return value, and how zone/url/host/json relate to the stated timezone-name purpose.
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 individual parameters are already documented. However, the description adds no meaning connecting 'iana-zones' with the unrelated-looking url, host, and json parameters, leaving the overall parameter semantics 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 says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which restates the tool name without stating an action or return behavior. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'timezone' tool.
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 phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case, but it is not explicit or actionable.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that group counts are returned, but does not disclose the network fetch, error handling, rate limits, or the fact that the schema parameters seem unrelated to the described 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 concise sentence with no filler. However, it lacks necessary structure and explanatory support, and its brevity comes at the cost of clarity given the mismatched schema.
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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters that appear unrelated to the described purpose, the definition is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what 'group counts' means, or what the return shape is.
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 parameter descriptions ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name') contradict the robots.txt purpose. The description adds no clarification on how these parameters relate to fetching robots.txt.
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 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, the input schema describes parameters for URL normalization/citation, JSON validation, and timezone—none of which relate to robots.txt. This contradiction makes the description misleading in context.
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. Sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone align much better with the provided schema than with the description, so an agent receives no clear selection criteria.
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 adds a useful behavioral detail by stating that query strings and fragments are dropped. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about the behavior for the host, json, or zone parameters, the return format, or edge cases.
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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that deliver the primary output and key transformation without filler. The brevity comes at the cost of ignoring the additional schema parameters, so the structure is efficient but not fully effective for the actual input surface.
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 exposes four optional parameters and has no annotations or output schema, yet the description only explains the URL normalization case. It never addresses the host, json, or zone parameters or when each should be used, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool across its full input range.
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 every parameter already has a one-line explanation, which meets the baseline. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not help an agent map the unrelated host, json, and zone fields to the tool's stated behavior.
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 a specific output ('origin, host, and path') and a specific behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'), so the core action is understandable. However, the input schema contains three additional parameters (host, json, zone) that are unrelated to URL normalization and are not acknowledged, making the full scope of the tool unclear.
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, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. The unrelated 'json' and 'zone' parameters are especially confusing because the description gives no indication of when, if ever, they should be provided.
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 provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says the tool is a 'short catalog'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it accepts or discards the provided url/host/json/zone values, or what the output format looks like.
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 terse and contains no wasted words, but brevity is not conciseness when essential information is absent. A single noun phrase does not provide enough structure or actionable content for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.
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 annotations, no output schema, and four seemingly unrelated optional parameters, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot determine what request to build, what response to expect, or how this tool differs from its siblings.
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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no connection between parameters like 'json' or 'zone' and the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the semantic relationship 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 names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') but lacks a clear action verb such as retrieve, list, or lookup. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'http-307', which likely covers a specific status code, and the input schema fields (url, host, json, zone) do not obviously relate to status codes.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-307, citation, or validate-json. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between the sibling 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?
There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary output and gives no insight into invalid timezone handling, required fields despite the schema marking all parameters optional, or whether the unrelated url/host/json parameters are ignored. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with several optional 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It loses one point because the extreme brevity omits important operational context for a tool whose schema is noisy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, a one-line phrase is not complete enough. The description does not tell the agent which parameter to use, does not acknowledge the irrelevant parameters, and does not describe the response format or error behavior. This is particularly problematic given the misleading schema surface.
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, but the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the zone concept. More importantly, the schema contains three unrelated parameters (url, host, json) with no required parameters, and the description does not clarify that zone is the only relevant input or what happens if the others are supplied.
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 resource (a named IANA timezone) and the result (current time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones by focusing on a specific named zone rather than UTC or a list of zones, though it could have been more explicit as an instruction.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for current local time in a named IANA timezone. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer utc-time or iana-zones, and there are no exclusions or alternative comparisons.
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, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output. It does not clarify whether the four input parameters are accepted, ignored, or required, nor the timestamp's format or precision. The mismatch between the description and the unrelated parameters is a significant transparency 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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. For a tool that might simply return the current time, brevity is a virtue. However, the terseness leaves out behavioral context that the schema mismatch makes necessary.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a surprisingly broad input schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not address why the parameters exist, what the return format is, or how this tool differs from time-related siblings. The context is incomplete for correct invocation.
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 itself explains each parameter's nominal meaning. The tool description adds no information tying these parameters to obtaining a UTC timestamp, so the agent remains uncertain why url, host, json, and zone appear on this tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not help disambiguate their relevance.
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.' clearly states what the tool returns: the current UTC time. It implies a simple read-only resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', which could also conceivably produce time-related output.
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 siblings such as 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description is a single statement with no context, exclusions, or alternative routing. An agent must guess whether to call this or a sibling for time-related needs.
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 discloses the key behavioral trait that the body is discarded, which is useful and goes beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not state what the tool returns, whether it emits errors, or how validity is reported.
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 filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, making this appropriately concise and structurally clean.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the outcome of a validation call. It does not specify the return value, error behavior, or which of the four schema properties is relevant. The presence of three seemingly unrelated parameters also creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.
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 minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the body is discarded. It does not clarify why the unrelated parameters url, host, and zone exist in the schema, nor which parameter is actually used for validation.
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: checking whether a body is valid JSON, and adds that the body is discarded. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all relate to URLs, timezones, or HTTP inspection, though the wording 'body' is slightly vague compared to naming the 'json' parameter directly.
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 intended use is implied by the name and description: call this when you need to determine whether a JSON string is syntactically valid. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage guidance entirely implicit.
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-307iana-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 503.
