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 present, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions 'Fetch' and 'return group counts only', but does not clarify if it performs a network request, handles redirects or errors, or has any side effects. Minimal 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?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main action, but it lacks structure for explaining parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but also not well-organized.
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 insufficient to understand how to use the tool correctly. The parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose, and there is no context on how the inputs relate to fetching robots.txt. The tool appears to be a template that was poorly adapted.
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. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which are clearly for other tools (normalize-url, validate-json). These descriptions add confusion rather than meaning for a robots.txt inspection 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 states a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and output ('return group counts only'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools. However, it lacks detail on what 'group counts' mean exactly.
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. It simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools.
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 purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time all relate to time. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog. Only a few tools have truly distinct, non-overlapping functions.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is a consistent visual style. However, the pattern is inconsistent: some are imperative verbs (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone, status-catalog). The names are readable but do not follow a predictable verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and falls within the typical well-scoped range. Some tools feel trivial or overlapping, such as lang-it and the multiple time-related tools, but the total is not excessive.
The tool set has no coherent unifying domain: it mixes URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and a language tag. Obvious operations like URL validation, timezone conversion, or HTTP status details are missing, and the grab-bag nature makes it impossible to assess complete lifecycle coverage.