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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output format, but fails to mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if robots.txt is missing. The parameter descriptions in the schema are wildly inconsistent (e.g., zone described as timezone), which adds confusion rather than transparency.
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 short and to the point. It contains no fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, which slightly reduces the score.
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 appears simple, but the description leaves critical gaps: what constitutes a 'group', how url and host interact, and what the output format is. Given the param descriptions are misleading, the description does not make the tool usable without external knowledge.
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 description does not explain any parameters. Although schema descriptions exist, they are clearly mismatched to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'json to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name' are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt). The description adds no clarification, leaving parameter usage entirely ambiguous.
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 action (fetch a public robots.txt) and the result (return group counts only). It is specific to robots.txt and distinguishes from generic URL or timezone tools among siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any indication of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling 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.
Some tools have overlapping concerns: citation and normalize-url both parse URLs and return host/scheme, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time. compatibility is also vague, making its relationship to the other tools unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphen separators and mostly use noun phrases, with a few verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, though the set covers a broad mix of URL, HTTP, time, and JSON utilities rather than a single focused domain.
The set covers common inspection tasks (URLs, robots.txt, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validity), but it lacks deeper operations like URL content retrieval, ISO duration conversion/parsing beyond shape, or more comprehensive HTTP status/request details.