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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that 'the body is discarded,' which is a useful behavioral trait (no persistence). However, it fails to clarify that the schema contains unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) that appear to be ignored, and it does not mention error behavior or return format. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent about side effects or constraints.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified; it omits critical information about parameter usage and potential side effects. The brevity is not a virtue here because it leaves gaps that the agent must infer.
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 apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the json parameter should be provided (e.g., as a string), what the return value is, or how the unrelated schema parameters are handled. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover these aspects. The presence of four parameters with only one relevant to the tool's purpose is a significant gap that the description does not address.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the description does not add value beyond the schema and fails to explain why url, host, and zone are present when the tool only validates JSON. The 'body' terminology conflicts with the 'json' parameter, and the description does not clarify that only the json field is used. This creates confusion and does not compensate for the extraneous parameters.
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: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb (check) and resource (JSON validity). It distinguishes from siblings like normalize-url and timezone, which are unrelated. However, the term 'body' is slightly ambiguous and not aligned with the schema's 'json' parameter, which slightly reduces 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. For a validation tool, it might be obvious, but the lack of any context about when to prefer it over other tools (e.g., compatibility or status-catalog) leaves the agent without routing information.
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.
Each tool has a unique, well-defined purpose with no overlapping functionality. For example, 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json' address distinct concerns, and time-related tools are clearly separated.
Tool names follow a mix of conventions: some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive. Each tool covers a separate utility, though a few could arguably be merged (e.g., timezone and utc-time), but the number is still within a sensible range.
The server name 'Language ja' suggests a language-related domain, yet the tools cover miscellaneous web utilities (URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON). This mismatch and lack of a cohesive domain make the surface feel incomplete for any specific purpose.