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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'The body is discarded', clarifying the tool is non-persistent. It does not state the return format (e.g., boolean vs error), rate limits, or side effects, but for a validation check the disposal behavior is the most important behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately clarifying the destructive/disposal aspect. No wasted words; every phrase 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 input schema lists four unrelated-looking parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the description only explains 'json'. The tool's actual behavior for the other parameters and what counts as a valid result is unclear. Given a simple tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the expected return value or error behavior.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'json' parameter's disposition ('discarded after the check') and the purpose of validation, but it does not clarify the relationship between 'url'/'host'/'zone' and the validation task, which is confusing.
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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON', and adds that the body is discarded. It distinguishes the core validation purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings; the sibling names suggest URL/timezone-related functionality, but the description itself doesn't name 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?
The description implies the tool is for a quick validity check and explicitly notes the body is discarded, which warns against relying on it for storage. However, it provides no when-to-use versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no note about what makes JSON invalid.
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 overlap in the URL/host/status space: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all return host-like information, and compatibility is vague. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could still misselect when looking for a specific URL metric.
Names mix single-word nouns like citation and timezone, noun phrases like domain-shape and status-catalog, and verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. All use kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server. Most tools have narrow, distinct purposes, though a few time-related and URL-related tools feel somewhat redundant.
The set covers URL normalization, JSON/JWT inspection, robots, HTTP status, and time utilities, but the lack of a single cohesive domain leaves noticeable gaps. For example, there is no generic URL validation, no HTTP header inspection, and the compatibility tool is underspecified.