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?
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.
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.