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 convey behavior. It implies a read-only fetch but does not mention failure handling, timeouts, or what happens if robots.txt is absent. The mismatch in parameter descriptions further obscures expected 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 a single, short sentence that is efficient and gets to the point without unnecessary words.
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 an agent to use correctly: no details on required input format, output structure, error conditions, or how the parameters relate to the task. The mismatched parameter descriptions create additional confusion.
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 copied from unrelated tools (e.g., 'normalize or cite' for url, 'validate' for json) and do not match the tool's purpose. This is seriously misleading and fails to clarify how 'url' or 'host' should be used for fetching robots.txt.
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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'robots.txt' clearly state the core action, and 'return group counts only' specifies the output. However, the parameter descriptions are confusing and could mislead about what the tool actually 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase 'group counts only' hints at a distinction but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions.
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 URL-centered tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) and time tools (timezone, utc-time) overlap in input type and could be confused, though their output purposes are mostly distinct. The vague 'compatibility' tool lacks a clear boundary, and 'lang-hi' seems unrelated to the rest.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual pattern, but the grammatical style is mixed: some are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), some nouns (citation, timezone), and some are opaque (compatibility, lang-hi). It is readable but not a clean verb_noun convention.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a utility server and not bloated. However, a few tools feel like one-offs or constants (lang-hi, iana-zones), so the set does not feel perfectly curated.
The tool surface is a grab bag of URL, HTTP status, robots, time, JSON, and language utilities, so there is no coherent domain to complete. For a web/URL toolkit, obvious operations like header inspection, content fetch, or DNS/WHOIS are missing; for a language server, only a tag constant is present.