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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add one useful behavioral fact—'The body is discarded'—but it does not explain what the tool returns, whether it performs network calls, or how url/host/zone relate to validation.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note is concise. 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 tool is low complexity, but the description leaves important gaps: no return format, no mention of how the validation result is expressed, and no clarification of why three unrelated optional parameters exist. The schema helps, but the description alone is not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes essentially no additional parameter meaning; it does not explicitly tie 'body' to the 'json' parameter, and the unrelated url, host, and zone parameters remain unexplained 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 clearly states the tool validates whether a body is valid JSON, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are JSON validators, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The only clue is the imperative purpose statement, which merely implies usage rather than defining context.
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.