ISO 639 language tag es.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that page content is not stored, a useful behavioral trait, but it does not mention other side effects like network requests, error handling, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.
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 concise, using only two sentences with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral note.
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 is incomplete for the given schema complexity. It does not clarify which parameters are required or how they map to the output, nor does it describe the return format or possible errors. This leaves the agent unable to properly invoke the tool.
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 how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool's purpose. The input schema's parameter descriptions are mismatched (e.g., json for validation, zone for timezone), and the tool description adds no clarifying meaning, making the parameters 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 clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral detail is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but does not disclose other key aspects like whether the tool performs network requests, modifies any state, or how it handles the provided inputs. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 concise (two sentences) and structured as a statement plus a privacy note. However, the first sentence is too generic and does not earn its place by providing useful information, making the conciseness a trade-off with 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?
Given the tool's potential complexity (four optional inputs, unclear classification), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output format, expected input combinations, and the nature of the classification, which an agent would need to use the tool effectively.
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 schema already provides individual parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), so the coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate to the classification logic, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Show how this request is classified' but never specifies what kind of classification is performed or what the output represents. The tool name 'compatibility' hints at the purpose, but the description itself is too vague to understand the actual function.
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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or any behavioral guarantees beyond the basic splitting operation. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' offers a hint of what is excluded, but not what is included.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 severely incomplete given the mismatch between the description and the input schema. The parameters appear copied from other tools (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url, timezone) and do not align with the stated purpose of splitting hostnames. This leaves the agent without sufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
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 input schema includes four properties (url, host, json, zone) but their descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' which is irrelevant to splitting a hostname. The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters affect the splitting operation, making the schema misleading.
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 ('Split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname), and it distinguishes itself by noting it does not include WHOIS or ownership data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url, though the action is specific enough.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns, side effects, or any requirements, and the vague wording does not clarify operation.
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 single sentence is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits critical context and fails to front-load any actionable 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?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, how parameters are used, or what the response will be, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly.
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?
Although the schema provides descriptions for each parameter (100% coverage), the tool description adds no meaning to how they relate. The claim of timezone names conflicts with the presence of url, host, and json parameters, making the semantics confusing rather than clarified.
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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' implies a reference list but the input schema includes url, host, json, and zone, which suggests a different operation. It lacks a specific verb or resource and does not distinguish from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions fetching a public resource but does not disclose network behavior, error handling, rate limits, or whether any data is modified. The word 'only' suggests limited output but does not clarify side effects or failures.
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 concise and contains no unnecessary words. It states the action and the output limitation in a single sentence. The structure is clear and easy to parse, even though the content is semantically weak.
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 omits critical context such as how to provide the target URL, what 'group counts' refers to, and what the response format is. The parameter names conflict with the stated purpose, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool without additional 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 parameter descriptions are completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. The 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', none of which relate to fetching a robots.txt file. The description offers no explanation of how these parameters should be used for the stated task.
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 action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a specific output ('return group counts only'), but it does not specify which URL to use or how 'group counts' are defined. The parameter names and descriptions do not align with the stated purpose, creating ambiguity about what resource is actually being inspected.
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 usage when needing robots.txt group counts, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ISO 639 language tag es.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a description that only names a language tag, the agent receives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, or error conditions. The description does not disclose anything about the tool's runtime 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 brief, but brevity comes at the expense of necessary action-oriented information. It is a noun phrase rather than a functional specification.
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 lacks any context about input semantics, expected output, or relationship to sibling tools. It is under-specified even for a simple reference tool.
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?
Although the schema has 100% coverage, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are generic and their descriptions do not explain how they relate to a language tag. The tool description fails to connect any parameter to the apparent language-tag purpose.
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 only 'ISO 639 language tag es,' which identifies a language code but does not state what the tool does. An agent cannot infer whether the tool retrieves, validates, converts, or describes the language tag.
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 any sibling tool. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the behavior: it returns three components (origin, host, path) and drops query and fragment. This is transparent about the operation's effect. No side effects or hidden behaviors are mentioned, but none are apparent for a URL normalization function.
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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 is incomplete given the provided schema. It covers only the 'url' parameter and fails to explain the purpose of 'host', 'json', and 'zone', which appear in the input schema. This leaves significant contextual gaps that an agent would need to resolve before invoking the tool correctly.
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 schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the description only references 'url' and even implies 'host' is an output, not an input. The parameters 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to URL normalization and have descriptions that suggest they belong to completely different tools. The description does nothing to clarify the role of these extra parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unclear.
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's purpose: to return origin, host, and path for a URL, and to drop query and fragment. This is a specific verb-noun-resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 URL normalization, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'citation' or 'validate-json'. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough to infer typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It mentions nothing about read-only behavior, data mutation, external calls, or side effects. The word 'catalog' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, leaving room for uncertainty.
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, but its brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail. It omits the action, input/output expectations, and relationship to parameters. A concise description should pack essential information into few words; this one merely states a vague noun phrase and fails to communicate the tool's function.
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 simple in concept, but the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the tool behaves, what inputs are expected, what output is produced, or how it differs from siblings. Combined with the parameter mismatch, the description is actively confusing rather than 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?
The parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely mismatched with the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') appear copied from other tools and do not relate to status codes. The description provides no explanation for how these parameters are used, making them misleading.
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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') without a clear verb or action. It indicates what the resource is but not what the tool does—e.g., whether it lists codes, looks up a code, or returns metadata. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to invoke or use it.
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 sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url) have self-explanatory purposes, but this description offers no situational context or comparison to help the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the output ('current time') and does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, errors, or constraints. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and falls short.
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 concise and free of unnecessary information. It states the core purpose in a single short sentence.
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 simple time lookup tool, the description is minimally adequate but omits useful context such as expected output format, handling of invalid timezone names, and whether the tool is read-only. It is complete enough for basic understanding but not fully robust.
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 schema includes four parameters, but the description only explains 'zone'. The roles of 'url', 'host', and 'json' are unclear in the context of this tool, and there is no explanation of how they relate to the described functionality.
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 returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from generic time tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', slightly reducing clarity.
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 such as utc-time. The description does not mention any conditions or preferences that would help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral details such as side effects, errors, or output format. The odd parameter list suggests possible unexpected behavior but nothing is disclosed.
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 brief, which is concise but insufficient. It lacks necessary context about the tool's capabilities and inputs, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a strength.
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?
No output schema, usage context, or relationship to sibling tools is provided. The mismatch between the description and parameters leaves a completely incomplete picture for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Although parameters have descriptions, they describe behaviors unrelated to a UTC timestamp (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'). These descriptions actively mislead rather than clarify; they do not add meaningful semantics for this tool.
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 'Current UTC timestamp.' states a clear output but does not explain what the tool does with inputs. The purpose is partially clear, but the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) makes the actual function ambiguous.
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 siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the body is discarded after the check, which hints at no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, potential errors, or any other side effects. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent.
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, concise sentence that directly states the action. It is efficiently structured with no fluff, though it omits important context about the additional parameters.
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?
Given the tool has multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, but the tool description does not explain how url, host, and zone relate to JSON validation. The json parameter is clearly described as the JSON text to validate, but the others appear arbitrary. This partial clarity earns a middle score.
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 checks whether a body is valid JSON, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or timezone, which serve different purposes. However, the inclusion of url, host, and zone parameters is not explained, creating some ambiguity about the full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any competing tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotslang-esnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (URL inspection, time, status codes, JSON validation), but citation and normalize-url both deal with URL parts and could cause confusion. compatibility is also somewhat vague, though it appears to classify requests differently.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens (e.g., domain-shape, utc-time, validate-json), forming a consistent and predictable pattern across the entire set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server lacks a unified focus—it's a grab bag of utilities. While not excessive, the count feels high for the apparent scope, which is unclear and fragmented.
There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against. The server is labeled 'Language es' but only one tool (lang-es) relates to language, leaving many potential gaps. For a general utility server, it's missing obvious pairs like URL fetching or timezone listing beyond common names.