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?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Fetch' and 'return'), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects. Since there are no annotations, this implicit information is the only transparency provided.
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 to the point, using a single clear sentence. However, it lacks any structure or additional context, but this is acceptable given its 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?
While the purpose is clear, the overall context is incomplete because the parameter mismatches create confusion. An agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant or how they relate to fetching robots.txt, so the description fails to provide a complete understanding.
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', which have no relevance to fetching robots.txt. This is a severe flaw 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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching a public robots.txt and returning group counts. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from siblings like validate-json or timezone.
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 does not mention scenarios where it is preferred or how it differs from other 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'citation' and 'normalize-url' overlap in parsing URLs and returning host/scheme details, while 'compatibility' is vaguely described. Overall, the boundaries are mostly clear.
Names are consistently lowercase and hyphenated, but mix noun-style names ('timezone', 'citation') with verb-style names ('inspect', 'normalize', 'validate'). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making the naming style inconsistent.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a utility-focused server and within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect, though some could be consolidated.
The set covers URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, robots.txt, language tags, and JSON validation, but lacks broader web-development utilities like DNS lookups or header inspection. The domain is not fully defined, so some gaps are possible.