ISO 639 language tag nl.
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 full burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee ('Page content is not stored') and states the output fields. However, it does not disclose whether a network request is made, error behavior, redirect handling, or how the json and zone inputs are processed.
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 main behavior is front-loaded, and the privacy note earns its place by adding useful behavioral context.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide complete context, but it only covers the URL path. The json and zone parameters are entirely absent from the description, and the relationship to sibling tools like validate-json and timezone is unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about the full scope of the tool.
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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and does not mention json or zone, but the schema already documents each property adequately.
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 ('Return') and names concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, and it ignores the json/zone parameters, so it is not a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, and validate-json exist, but the description never explains when citation should be chosen over them or when it 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.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no identifiers are retained, which is a positive privacy note, but it does not say whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, or has any side effects. The classification behavior itself is left opaque.
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 (two short sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the first sentence is vague and does not earn its place – 'Show how this request is classified' could be more specific. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explain what classification means, how the parameters influence the result, or what the output looks like. An agent would not know what to expect or how to interpret the response.
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 coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all 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 states a verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request'), but 'this request' is undefined – it could refer to any of the four parameters or the whole tool invocation. It does not specify what classification means or what the tool produces, making it impossible to distinguish from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.
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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools cover related actions (citation, domain-shape, iana-zones, validate-json, etc.), but the description gives no hint about when 'compatibility' is the right choice.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that no WHOIS/ownership data is returned, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool performs network calls, how it handles invalid hostnames, which parameter is authoritative, or what the output looks like. The schema's 'json' parameter says 'discarded after the check,' hinting at behavior the description omits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core function and scope.
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 output schema or annotations, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain the return format, the relationship between the four parameters, or the conditions under which each should be supplied. The presence of unrelated-looking parameters (json, zone) makes the missing context more damaging.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify whether 'host' is preferred over 'url' or why 'json' and 'zone' are accepted. The schema's own descriptions are clear, but the tool-level description does not connect them to the stated purpose.
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 uses a specific verb ('Split'), a specific resource ('hostname'), and an explicit scope exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), making the core function clear. However, the input schema accepts url, json, and zone parameters that are not accounted for in the description, so the stated purpose does not fully explain the tool's interface.
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 given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as normalize-url or validate-json. The only hint is the exclusion of WHOIS/ownership data, which clarifies what the tool does not return, not when to use it. An agent has to infer that this is for hostname label splitting.
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, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'. It does not mention side effects, return format, or how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used.
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 and syntactically simple, which aids readability. However, it omits essential functional information, making the brevity more harmful than helpful for a correct tool selection.
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 odd mixture of parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are valid, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools.
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 inconsistent with the tool's apparent purpose: 'url' says 'normalize or cite', 'json' says 'validate', which are actions belonging to sibling tools. The 'zone' parameter is the only one matching IANA timezone names, and 'host' is unexplained in this context.
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 the resource 'IANA timezone names' and a purpose 'clock calls', but lacks a clear verb or action (e.g., list, retrieve, validate). It is not obvious whether this tool returns a list of names, checks a name, or performs another operation, especially given the unrelated-looking parameters.
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 given about when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools like 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'validate-json'. The description does not explain selection criteria or mention alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a network fetch and that only group counts are returned, but it does not mention failure modes, redirects, non-200 responses, rate limits, or why unrelated parameters like json and zone appear in the schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key scoping detail ('group counts only') is included.
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 network-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified. An agent cannot tell which parameters to supply, what 'group counts' means structurally, or how failures are reported. The unrelated optional parameters compound the ambiguity.
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 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no parameter meaning and leaves the relevance of json and zone to robots.txt inspection unexplained, but it does not actively misrepresent the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a public robots.txt'), and a distinctive output ('return group counts only'). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, though it does not name an alternative.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs robots.txt group counts, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The context is inferable but not stated.
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 nl.
| 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 and a trivial description, the tool's behavior is completely opaque. It does not disclose what the tool does with the input parameters, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the return value might be. The description offers no insight beyond the tool's name.
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, but this is not effective conciseness—it omits essential information. It is not front-loaded with actionable content and reads more like a placeholder than a useful tool specification.
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 far from complete for the tool's complexity. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, how the parameters are used, what output to expect, or any context about the language tag. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or understand the tool is provided.
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 the schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, those descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (a language tag). The description does not explain how 'url', 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to 'nl', leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.
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 'ISO 639 language tag nl' is a static label, not a statement of the tool's function. It lacks a verb or action and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'citation' or 'normalize-url'. The purpose is effectively tautological and misleading given the unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone).
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 when to prefer alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or examples, leaving the agent without any direction for selection or invocation.
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?
The description discloses the key behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. Given no annotations exist, this helps the agent understand side effects.
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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's behavior.
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 tool, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and its output. The schema covers parameters, though the mismatch between the description and extra parameters (host, json, zone) could cause slight confusion, so a small deduction is applied.
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 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, but the schema coverage is full.
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 returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly mentions dropping query and fragment. This is a specific, unambiguous 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'short catalog' and does not state side effects, output shape, whether it performs network calls, or that it is read-only. 'Short' hints at a limited result set, but that is not enough.
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 only seven words and has no fluff, but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It front-loads a label rather than the information needed to call the tool.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain much more. There is no mention of what the catalog contains, how parameters affect results, or what response the agent should expect.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are individually clear, but the tool description does not explain how url, host, json, or zone relate to a status-code catalog. The mismatch creates confusion rather than adding semantic value beyond the schema.
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 is a noun phrase ('short catalog...') with no actionable verb, so an agent cannot tell what invoking it accomplishes. It adds 'HTTP status codes' beyond the name but does not connect to the input schema's URL/host/JSON/timezone parameters, making the intended 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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone. With 10 sibling tools and a generic description, the agent is left with no routing information.
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?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Current time'), which is transparent in that regard. However, it discloses nothing about behavior on invalid timezone names, return format, or error handling. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) further obscures what the tool actually does, undermining transparency about its true 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, concise sentence with no filler. However, its brevity is misleading given the schema's four parameters — it omits any mention of the unrelated parameters or how they relate to the tool, making the concise description actively confusing rather than helpful.
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 severely incomplete for the schema it accompanies. It does not explain why url, host, and json parameters exist, what output the tool returns, or how errors are handled. An agent encountering this tool would have no way to correctly invoke it beyond guessing that 'zone' is the intended parameter, leaving the tool effectively unusable without external context.
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?
Of the four schema parameters, only 'zone' (IANA timezone name) aligns with the tool's stated purpose. The other three — url ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), host ('Public hostname'), and json ('JSON text to validate; discarded after the check') — are clearly copied from unrelated tools and have no semantic connection to fetching the current time. This is a severe mismatch that would mislead an agent.
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 identifies the core function (fetch current time) and resource (a specific timezone). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'utc-time,' which likely serves a similar purpose for UTC specifically, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 like 'utc-time.' The description also fails to clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant, despite three other parameters (url, host, json) being present in the schema. There is no indication of prerequisites, edge cases, or preferred invocation patterns.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing beyond the timestamp claim — no output format, no side effects, and no reconciliation with the schema's url/json/zone parameters that imply it does other work. The descriptor fails to reveal what the tool actually does with these inputs.
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?
Three words with zero waste is efficient, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. For a tool whose schema exposes four unrelated-looking parameters, this brevity leaves critical ambiguity unresolved.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters that cannot be reconciled with the stated purpose. A timestamp tool could be documented in one line if structured data were consistent, but here nothing explains the output format, the parameter relationships, or how this differs from the timezone/iana-zones siblings. The description is inadequate for the schema it accompanies.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a reasonable schema description, which would normally warrant a baseline of 3. But the description adds zero value for parameters, and the parameters themselves appear disconnected from the stated purpose — an agent given 'current UTC timestamp' would not expect url, host, json, and zone inputs. The semantic mismatch undermines the schema's own documentation.
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 resource ('current UTC timestamp'), which is clear on its face. However, the input schema's four parameters (url, host, json, zone) describe URL normalization, JSON validation, and IANA timezone functionality that has nothing to do with returning a timestamp. This schema-description mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose confusing and potentially misleading for an agent.
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 given on when to use this tool or how it differs from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. Given the schema suggests overlapping functionality with normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a serious gap.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a genuinely useful trait — 'The body is discarded' — signaling the input is not retained. But it does not disclose the return format, what happens on invalid JSON, or whether this is a pure read operation, which is material for a validation tool.
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 the purpose front-loaded and the behavioral note second. Every word earns its place, with zero filler.
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 validation tool the description nearly suffices, but the schema's three unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) are unexplained, there is no output schema, and no annotations. An agent has no way to know why those parameters are accepted or what the check returns, leaving an important gap in context.
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 schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the schema descriptions are misleading: 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'host' says 'Public hostname', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name' — all clearly copy-pasted from unrelated sibling tools. The description does not clarify this mismatch or reconcile its term 'body' with the schema's 'json' parameter, so it fails to add value over the schema and actually leaves the agent confused.
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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a body is valid JSON'), which clearly distinguishes it from its sibling tools, none of which do JSON validation. However, the input schema lists parameters (url, host, zone) that are clearly copied from sibling tools like normalize-url and timezone and bear no relation to JSON validation, muddying what 'body' actually refers to.
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 context about its role among the sibling tools. The description leaves the agent to infer the usage scenario entirely.
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-nlnormalize-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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both analyzing URLs, and 'compatibility' and 'status-catalog' both dealing with HTTP statuses. However, each has a distinct focus (scheme/status vs. origin/path; classification vs. catalog), so they are not fully redundant.
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case pattern with clear verb-noun or noun-only structures (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'inspect-robots', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
With 11 tools, the set is well-sized for a utility collection covering URL, HTTP, JSON, time, and language functions. It is within the typical 3-15 range and does not feel bloated or sparse.
The tools cover a diverse set of standalone web/REST utilities, but there is no cohesive domain or lifecycle (e.g., no CRUD operations, no clear workflow). Some areas could be missing (e.g., DNS lookup, header inspection), but each tool is self-contained for its stated purpose.
