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 |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns counts, but does not mention network behavior, failure modes, response format, or that json and zone appear irrelevant to the stated operation. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a network-fetch tool.
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 one sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does, making it highly concise.
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 four optional parameters that seem mismatched, the single sentence is insufficient context for correct invocation. The description lacks input semantics, return format expectations, error behavior, and any indication of how the tool relates to sibling tools.
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 do not align with the robots.txt purpose: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json as 'JSON text to validate', and zone as 'IANA timezone name'. The description adds no mapping from these four optional parameters to the fetch operation, so an agent cannot confidently determine which parameter to populate.
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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') and states the output scope ('group counts only'), so the basic purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like domain-shape, but the name reinforces the purpose. However, the input schema's parameter descriptions ('normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') are unrelated to robots.txt, which slightly weakens purpose clarity.
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 inspect-robots instead of alternatives such as domain-shape or status-catalog. The only implied context is fetching a public robots.txt, but the description does not state whether to pass a base host or a full URL, nor whether json or zone parameters should be ignored.
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.
Most tools target distinct concerns: timezone lookups, URL normalization, JSON validation, and robots.txt inspection are clearly separate. The only real overlap is citation vs. normalize-url, both of which extract host/scheme info from a URL, and iana-zones vs. timezone vs. utc-time could be slightly confusing in a timezone context.
All names use lowercase hyphenated style, which is readable, but they mix noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-led phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count, but the set is not well-scoped to the server's stated IANA Zones identity. Only three tools clearly relate to timezones, while the rest cover unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities, making the count feel padded rather than purpose-built.
For a timezone-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it offers common names, current time, and UTC, but no comprehensive zone list, offset information, or timezone conversion. The URL and JSON helpers are similarly one-off utilities with no broader workflow coverage, leaving notable gaps in the apparent domain.