ISO 639 language tag ko.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add one meaningful behavioral fact: 'Page content is not stored.' It does not disclose whether a network fetch occurs, error behavior, or how the host/json/zone parameters affect the call, so transparency is only partial.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary output is front-loaded, and the behavioral note earns its place.
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 tool with four optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains how host, json, or zone relate to the stated purpose, and it lacks the usage differentiation needed to navigate a 10-tool sibling set.
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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'URL'; it relies entirely on the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
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 names a specific action and output: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, which likely overlap in 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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use citation instead of the sibling tools, nor any exclusions. 'For a URL' is too generic to route an agent, and the 10 sibling tools suggest a real need for differentiation.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a meaningful privacy guarantee. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it performs network calls, or what side effects (if any) occur. The single behavioral note is useful but incomplete.
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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but the phrasing 'this request' is ambiguous and the second sentence is a bare privacy note. It is concise but lacks informative structure; it does not earn its place because it fails to convey enough 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?
For a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what the classification output looks like, or any limitations. The only concrete information is the privacy note. An agent has insufficient information to call this 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 input schema fully describes all four parameters with per-parameter descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional context about how the parameters influence the classification. Since the schema already covers parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or add nuance.
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 verb ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but 'this request' is vague and does not specify the classification criteria or what it does with the provided parameters. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url', which also deal with input processing. The purpose is clear enough that it's not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to guide selection.
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 description only states what it does, without mentioning typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when to prefer this over, for example, 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool operates 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which is a useful constraint, but it omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, and how the json and zone parameters interact with the described behavior. The schema description for json says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', implying a validation behavior not mentioned in the description, creating inconsistency.
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 sentence, so it is concise and free of fluff. However, it is so terse that it fails to provide any structure or context beyond a minimal statement. It does not front-load key information like usage or parameters, making it merely a label rather than a useful guide.
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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, what the expected inputs are, or what the tool returns. The presence of parameters like 'json' and 'zone' that seem unrelated to 'splitting a hostname' adds confusion. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided description.
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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since the schema already documents each parameter adequately, the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description does not clarify how parameters relate to the tool's core purpose, which might be expected.
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 verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. However, it is ambiguous how this relates to the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) which suggest a broader scope. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which are likely to have overlapping functionality.
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 does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent has no basis to decide whether to call domain-shape or a different tool.
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 disclosing behavior, but it does not state side effects, read-only status, error handling, or what happens with invalid input. The description implies a read-only lookup but never confirms 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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but its structure fails to align with the parameter list, making it confusing rather than clarifying. It lacks any mapping between the stated purpose and the actual inputs.
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 severe mismatch between the description and the parameters, the tool definition is not coherent enough for an agent to use correctly. The absence of an output schema and any parameter explanation compounds the incompleteness, leaving critical information missing.
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 disconnected from the stated purpose of providing IANA timezone names. The schema descriptions for url and json appear copied from unrelated tools (normalize-url and validate-json), and the description offers no explanation of how any parameter relates to timezone lookup, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.
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 the tool provides 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which gives a general sense of purpose but remains vague about whether it returns a list, validates a name, or resolves an alias. It does not clearly specify the tool's core function or output, leaving the agent to guess.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time.' It only loosely ties the tool to 'clock calls' without explaining distinct scenarios or fallback conditions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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 behavioral burden. It mentions fetching and returning group counts but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is only minimally described.
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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, it sacrifices necessary detail and structure, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.
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?
With four parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters map to the task, what 'group counts' means, or what the return format is. Essential invocation details are missing.
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?
While the schema covers all parameters, the descriptions are generic and appear mismatched to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' for the json parameter). They provide no meaningful semantics for how to use these parameters to fetch a 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 description states a clear verb and resource ('Fetch a public robots.txt'), but it does not indicate which parameter supplies the URL or how this tool differs from siblings like normalize-url. The purpose is understandable but incomplete for invocation.
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, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description merely states what it does without context for selection.
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 ko.
| 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 does not disclose any behavioral details such as expected outputs, side effects, errors, or data handling. Worse, the input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem unrelated to the stated language-tag purpose, creating confusion rather than transparency.
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 short and contains no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It omits essential action and usage details, so brevity is not a positive trait here.
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 definition is not complete enough for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly. The mismatch between the description and the input schema, combined with the absence of output details and usage context, leaves critical information missing.
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 all four schema parameters have descriptions, those descriptions are entirely disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of an ISO 639 language tag. The description does not explain how url, host, json, or zone relate to language-tag processing, so the parameter semantics are effectively 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 identifies a specific resource ('ISO 639 language tag ko') but does not state what action the tool performs with it—whether it validates, converts, retrieves information, or something else. This leaves the core purpose 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from sibling tools. The sibling list includes unrelated tools like normalize-url and validate-json, but no explanation is given for when lang-ko would be appropriate.
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?
Discloses that query and fragment are dropped and indicates the returned fields. However, there is no mention of validation behavior, error cases, or whether any state change occurs.
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 and front-loaded with the core output and behavior. It could be slightly expanded to clarify the unrelated parameters, but it is not redundant.
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 gives basic output behavior but lacks an output schema, parameter rationale, and usage context. Given sibling tools, the absence of selection criteria makes the context incomplete.
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?
Only the url parameter aligns with the described behavior. The host parameter appears to be an output field rather than an input, and json and zone are unrelated to URL normalization, with no clarification provided.
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?
Clearly states the action (return origin, host, and path) and the resource (a URL). It is distinct from sibling tools, though the url parameter description's wording 'normalize or cite' introduces slight ambiguity.
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 such as validate-json or iana-zones. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It provides no information about side effects, return format, pagination, or whether the tool is read-only. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing.
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) but overly vague. It is structured as a simple noun phrase without an actionable verb, and the brevity sacrifices necessary clarity about 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?
For a simple catalog tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the output looks like, whether it is a list, a map, or something else, and there is no output schema. The tool context is not adequately covered.
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 four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions that reference other tools' concerns (URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone). They are completely unrelated to a catalog of HTTP status codes, making the parameter semantics confusing and unhelpful.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' clearly identifies the resource but lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., 'returns', 'lists', 'looks up'). It is distinct from sibling tools but does not explicitly state what the tool does with the catalog.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.
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?
There are no annotations to compensate, and the description does not disclose what the tool returns (formatted string? object?), whether it is strictly read-only, or how it behaves for invalid timezone names. For a tool with near-zero behavioral disclosure, 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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core 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?
While the tool itself is simple, the description omits essential context such as the output format, error behavior for invalid zones, and the fact that three of the four schema parameters (url, host, json) appear irrelevant. The schema itself offers no output schema or annotations, so the description is the only context and it is insufficient.
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 only 'zone' is plausibly relevant to the described purpose; the other three appear to be copy-paste noise from unrelated tools. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for 'zone' ('named IANA timezone') and leaves the three irrelevant parameters unexplained, creating confusion.
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 time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the verb (retrieve current time) and resource (time in a named IANA timezone). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling utc-time by scoping to named IANA zones, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies it complements utc-time, but the when/when-not distinction is left entirely to inference, which is a clear gap.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It fails to disclose whether the tool ignores its url, host, json, and zone parameters, whether it has side effects, or what output format is returned.
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 short and free of fluff, but it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence. It lacks a verb and omits necessary context, so the terseness is not entirely appropriate.
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 schema includes four unrelated parameters and there is no output schema, a one-phrase description is completely insufficient. The tool needs to explain that it returns the current UTC timestamp and clarify how, if at all, the provided parameters are used.
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 adds no meaning to the input schema. The schema lists url, host, json, and zone with generic descriptions, all seemingly irrelevant to a UTC timestamp tool, and the description does not clarify or reconcile this mismatch.
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 phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly indicates the tool's core output, but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb and does not specify that it returns/generates the timestamp. It does not address the unrelated input schema, which slightly muddies the purpose.
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 like timezone or validate-json. No context, examples, or conditions are provided.
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?
The description indicates the body is discarded, implying a read-only validation with no side effects. However, it does not specify the return value or behavior on invalid JSON. Given no annotations, this limited transparency is the main evidence.
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 is easy to read. It front-loads the primary action of checking JSON validity. However, it omits parameter context, which is a structural gap.
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 because it does not explain the purpose of url, host, and zone parameters, nor how they relate to validating JSON. It also uses the term 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter. This leaves critical information missing for correct invocation.
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 provides descriptions for all four parameters, but the tool description itself does not explain them. The descriptions for url, host, and zone seem unrelated to JSON validation, creating confusion. The json parameter is clear, but the overall parameter semantics are not well 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 clearly states the tool validates whether a body is valid JSON and that the body is discarded. However, the presence of parameters like url, host, and zone unrelated to JSON validation introduces ambiguity. Thus it is mostly clear but not fully.
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 over sibling tools such as normalize-url or citation. It only states the validation action without situational context. Therefore, an agent cannot determine the appropriate use case.
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-konormalize-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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague and 'citation' vs 'normalize-url' both deal with URLs, though with different purposes. Overall, descriptions help clarify intent.
Names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json) with a few single-word exceptions like 'citation' and 'timezone'. The style is predictable and readable.
11 tools is well within the typical range for a general-purpose utility server, covering URL, time, HTTP status, JSON, and language helpers without being excessive.
The tool set covers a broad range of common web and time utilities. Minor gaps like DNS lookup or IP info exist, but for the apparent scope, the coverage is solid.