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?
The description says the body is discarded, implying no persistent side effects. However, it does not clarify the output format (e.g., boolean, error message) or whether any other parameters (url, host, zone) affect the check's behavior.
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 extremely short with no redundant wording. It conveys the core action in two sentences, though the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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 description fails to explain how the parameters (especially url, host, zone) fit into the validation process. It leaves the tool's full functionality and expected inputs largely unexplained, making it impossible to use correctly based on the description alone.
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 mentions a 'body' but never explains the parameters. The schema descriptions for url, host, json, and zone are not referenced, so the tool-level description adds no value in understanding what each parameter does or why they exist.
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 the tool 'checks whether a body is valid JSON', which is a clear action. However, it refers to a 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter, and the additional parameters (url, host, zone) are unmentioned, creating ambiguity about the intended input.
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 for when to use this tool versus other siblings like validate-json or normalize-url. The description gives no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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 serve clearly distinct purposes (URL, time, JSON, robots, etc.), but 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with other classifications. Overall, the functions are separable.
Naming conventions are inconsistent, mixing hyphenated phrases (domain-shape, normalize-url) with plain words (citation, timezone), and using both nouns and verbs. This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls comfortably within the typical well-scoped range and does not feel excessive or thin.
The set covers a variety of utilities (URL, HTTP, time, JSON, robots) but lacks a clear cohesive domain, leaving gaps for common web-dev helpers like encoding or hashing. It feels like a random collection rather than a complete toolkit.