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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool fetches a public resource and returns counts only, which implies a read-only, non-destructive nature, but it doesn't state what 'group counts' means, whether network failures are handled, or what happens if the URL is invalid. The behavior beyond the basic fetch is largely undisclosed.
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 that efficiently captures the core action and output scope. Every word earns its place, and it front-loads the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') before the result 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?
For a tool with four parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, this description is under-specified. It doesn't explain which parameter(s) to supply, how the output is structured (beyond 'group counts'), or any constraints like HTTPS requirement, making it incomplete for reliable 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters. The description adds the semantic that 'json' is discarded after the check and implies 'url'/'host' are used for fetching, but it doesn't clarify which parameters are needed for the robots.txt operation. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the missing usage 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 states a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a clear resource, distinguishing it from generic URL or validation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'citation' or 'validate', leaving minor ambiguity about scope.
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 implies it should be used for robots.txt fetching and group counts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, no input requirements (e.g., must use 'url' or 'host'), and no exclusions. An agent gets no direction on choosing this over citation or validation tools.
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 operate on URLs and overlap in scope: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all accept URL-related input and return overlapping metadata. The compatibility tool is too vague to distinguish from the others, and timezone/utc-time are similarly close.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style, which is readable and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun-based (citation, timezone, status-catalog).
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. Still, the server feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a focused toolkit, so the count is reasonable but not ideal.
The tool surface covers several URL, HTTP, time, and validation basics, but there is no clear overall domain tying them together. Notable gaps exist depending on intent: no DNS, header inspection, or meaningful ISBN validation beyond digit shape; the server name suggests a much narrower focus than what is provided.