Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does add one meaningful behavioral trait: 'The body is discarded,' indicating no persistence. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose what happens on invalid JSON (e.g., error vs. false return), whether the tool performs network fetches, or how the result is represented.
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 concise: two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The only minor issue is the ambiguous term 'body' instead of a more precise reference to the json parameter, which loses a fraction 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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, key behavioral details are missing: what the tool returns/emits for valid vs. invalid JSON, whether it accepts only the json parameter or also url/host/zone, and any error semantics. An agent could likely use it, but would have to make assumptions.
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-level explanation beyond what the schema already says; in particular, it does not clarify how the 'json' parameter maps to the 'body' mentioned in the description.
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 whether a body is valid JSON') and identifies the validated resource. However, 'body' is ambiguous and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools, though the name and action make the purpose reasonably obvious.
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. Sibling tools such as normalize/cite are not mentioned, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or context hints to help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have clear distinct purposes, but http-401 and status-catalog overlap on HTTP status information, and citation vs normalize-url both handle URL components. compatibility is also vague enough that an agent may struggle to know when to choose it.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the set mixes verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and utc-time. The pattern is readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but a few seem like one-off conveniences rather than part of a cohesive set, such as http-401 and compatibility. The count is not problematic, though slightly padded.
The implied domain is privacy-preserving HTTP/URL utilities, but there are notable gaps like redirect inspection, header checks, or URL comparison. Timezone and JSON validation tools feel disconnected from the core purpose, so the overall surface is incomplete and lacks a clear workflow.