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?
The description lacks any disclosure of side effects, safety, or mutation behavior. It mentions 'The body is discarded' but does not explain what this means operationally or whether the tool has any impact on external resources. No annotations are present to compensate.
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, but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It is a single sentence without any structured breakdown, which is acceptable for a simple tool but insufficient given the ambiguous purpose and mismatched parameters.
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 sibling tools (which are URL and timezone related), the context suggests this tool might validate JSON from a URL or timezone-related input, but this is not stated. The description does not explain how the tool fits into the broader workflow, and there is no output schema or return-value information, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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) have descriptions that do not align with the tool's stated purpose of checking a 'body'. The 'json' parameter matches the purpose, but 'url', 'host', and 'zone' appear unrelated and their descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest different functionality. The schema provides no additional clarity.
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 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but does not clarify what 'body' refers to or how it relates to the parameters (url, host, json, zone). The verb 'check' is present, but the object is ambiguous and the purpose is not specific enough to distinguish from other validation tools.
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 the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, timezone). The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
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.
Tools overlap in purpose: 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both process URLs, while 'timezone' and 'utc-time' both return time-related data. The distinction between 'domain-shape' and 'normalize-url' is also unclear without deeper inspection.
Names mix single words (citation, compatibility, timezone) and hyphenated compounds (domain-shape, normalize-url, validate-json). Some names are vague and not action-oriented (e.g., 'citation', 'compatibility'), and 'lang-ru' is narrowly scoped without a pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls within the acceptable 3-15 range and does not feel excessive. The number is reasonable for a utilities server, though a couple of tools could be merged without loss of clarity.
The set covers several web-related utilities (URLs, status codes, time, JSON, robots), but the domain is not clearly defined and lacks common counterparts (e.g., encoding/decoding, hashing). The inclusion of a single language tag tool ('lang-ru') suggests a narrow or arbitrary scope.