ISO 639 language tag wo.
Scored across 29 tools
Multiple tools are near-identical: browser-url-ok and playwright-url-ok both check if a URL can be opened, and fetch-status and web-fetch both return HTTP status for public URLs. Many shape/parse/hint utilities also overlap conceptually, making tool selection highly ambiguous.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-object (validate-json, normalize-url), some are object-ok (file-path-ok, wiki-title-ok), and others are shape/hint/count nouns (github-repo-shape, weather-hint, hn-front-count). This mixed convention makes the naming pattern hard to predict.
29 tools is above the threshold for a cohesive toolkit and the count feels bloated, especially since many tools serve similar URL/status checking purposes. The server would be better with a smaller, focused subset.
The set lacks a coherent domain or lifecycle: it mixes time, weather, URL parsing, JSON validation, Wikipedia lookups, and odd single-purpose helpers like lang-wo and think-steps. There is no discernible purpose that this tool surface could fully cover, leaving the set feeling arbitrary and severely incomplete.
Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice. Returns connection methods. Task text discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 does mention that 'Task text discarded' (privacy-relevant) and that it 'Returns connection methods', but it does not disclose side effects, network usage, permissions, or what happens when no gateway is found. Some behaviors are disclosed, but the coverage is 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 extremely concise — two short sentences with no filler. The front-loaded 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' immediately states the core action, and the additional sentence adds a behavior detail. Every word 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?
The tool has 9 optional string parameters and no output schema, but the description doesn't explain which parameters are relevant to which task, what domains parameters represent, or the structure of the returned 'connection methods'. Given its open-input nature and lack of schema clarification of usage, an agent would struggle to know how to invoke it correctly. Significant gaps remain.
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 already describes each parameter individually (with 100% coverage), and the description does not contradict or add much beyond the schema. It adds some context via examples of task types, but doesn't map specific parameters to task categories (e.g., city for weather or query for search). With the schema carrying the parameter meaning, it's at baseline 3.
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 verb ('Find') and resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and lists example task domains (weather, search, scrape, voice). It clearly conveys what the tool does without being tautological, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools that handle those same domains (e.g., weather-hint, web-fetch). Hence 4.
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 phrase 'for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice' gives context on when to use the tool, implying that an agent should use it when needing a gateway for such tasks. However, there is no explicit when-not or reference to and alternative tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully developed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 only states that no browser is launched, but it omits other important behaviors such as whether a network request is made, side effects, return format, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 concise (two short sentences) with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema). It is concise but not effectively so, as it omits necessary 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?
This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a vague two-sentence explanation. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret 'ok', how to use the mixed set of parameters, or any edge cases. This is completely inadequate for an agent to call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema; it refers only to URLs while the schema contains many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) that are not explained in the description. This creates confusion about how the parameters relate to the stated purpose, so the description actually detracts from parameter understanding.
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 ('Check whether a URL can be opened') which is clear on its face. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or fetch-status, and the meaning of 'opened' is ambiguous (syntactic validity vs. network reachability). The description also seems inconsistent with the input schema, which includes unrelated parameters like city, json, and zone, making the purpose less clear in context.
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 usage guidance is given. The phrase 'No browser is launched' implies a lightweight check, but it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like playwright-url-ok or fetch-status, nor does it state any prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavior. It mentions that the expression is 'discarded', which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool returns a result, produces side effects, or how it handles the many possible inputs 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 appropriately short, at two sentences, and the first sentence states the purpose. However, the second sentence is vague and does not clarify the tool semantics, so it does not earn its place with a clear explanation.
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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what input to supply and what the agent can expect back. It is missing this entirely, leaving an agent unable to use the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% per the context signals, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no information about which of the nine parameters is relevant to the arithmetic evaluation, so the support is at the baseline without further value.
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 says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but does not explain what evaluating means in this context, nor does it distinguish this from sibling shape-checking tools. The phrase 'Expression discarded' is ambiguous about whether the tool returns a computed value or merely validates the shape.
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 indication of when to use calc-eval versus the many sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'wiki-title-ok'. It does not mention the intended use case, prerequisites, or any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses 'Page content is not stored', which adds privacy context beyond annotations (none exist). However, it omits that a network request is made, any rate limits, and how the other 8 parameters are handled. The single disclosure is useful but far from a complete behavioral profile.
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 sentences with zero unnecessary words. The essential output and the privacy guarantee are front-loaded. No filler or repetition.
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 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain which parameters are needed, what happens when multiple are supplied, or whether there are prerequisites. The user would be confused about the purpose of many input fields.
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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description clarifies that 'url' is the relevant input and names the outputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. It does not, however, explain the roles of or interactions among the many other 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 names the exact outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 only says what it returns, not when it should be preferred over fetch-status or normalize-url. It neither names alternatives nor gives a when-to-use/when-not-to-use.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. The phrase 'No identifiers are retained' and schema-level notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access' do disclose retention and access behavior. However, the overall mechanism—what classification means, whether external calls are made, or what side effects occur—remains undisclosed.
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 two-sentence description is compact and front-loaded with its purpose before a retention statement. Both sentences are short and non-verbose, though the first sentence's vagueness keeps it from earning a perfect score.
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 is complex (9 optional parameters, no required fields, many siblings, no output schema yet it is expected to reply with some classification), and the description fails to explain what the output includes or how the tool handles multiple or zero parameters. Additionally, it does not orient the agent toward any of the sibling tools, leaving a large context gap.
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 schema already explains each parameter's meaning and lifecycle (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds little beyond a general, redundant retention guarantee; therefore the baseline of 3 applies and no additional semantic value is 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?
The description states a verb and a target ('Show how this request is classified') but 'classified' is vague and never defined; it does not explain what category or compatibility decision results. It also fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings such as 'citation', 'domain-shape', or 'validate-json', whose purposes overlap with a classification-style action.
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 about when to use this tool instead of its siblings. With 9 heterogeneous optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and no stated rule for selecting among them, the agent is left to infer the intended invocation context.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which implies a safe, non-network operation, but it does not disclose output format, side effects, error behavior, or that most parameters are discarded after a check. The one behavioral hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no output 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 sentence with no redundant words, but it is so terse that it omits critical context. It is concise but not well-structured; it front-loads the action but leaves the reader with more questions than answers about the tool's multi-input nature.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain how the tool handles each parameter, what 'labels' means in the output, or how the tool relates to its siblings. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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, but the tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. It only references a 'hostname', which corresponds to 'host' but not clearly, and does not explain how the other 8 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) relate to the described operation. In fact, the narrow description contradicts the wide parameter set, failing to help an agent choose the right parameter.
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 'Split a hostname into labels', which is a specific verb and resource, but it only mentions hostname while the input schema accepts 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). This suggests the tool is not solely about hostnames, so the description is misleading about the tool's actual scope and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape.
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 conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools are more appropriate for specific scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the bare description and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HEAD a public URL and return status only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 only reveals that a HEAD request is made and status is returned, but does not disclose behavior for the other 8 parameters (e.g., whether they trigger alternative checks, are discarded, or cause errors). It also omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format, which are essential for a tool with such a broad 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, which is concise structurally. However, it is under-specified to the point of being insufficient rather than appropriately concise, omitting critical scope information visible in the schema.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the tool behaves for non-URL parameters, when to choose it over siblings, or what result format to expect. An agent cannot safely call this tool with confidence for any use case beyond a simple URL status check, and even then, alternatives are unknown.
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 descriptions are complete (100% coverage), the overall description adds confusion by implying only 'url' is relevant while the schema lists eight other potentially independent behaviors. The description does not reconcile how these parameters relate to the stated action (e.g., are they alternative modes or discarded?), so it fails to clarify which parameters are needed for which use case.
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 action for a URL ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), which is clear in isolation. However, the input schema includes 9 parameters with distinct behaviors (e.g., 'Git ref shape check', 'JSON validation', 'timezone name'), none of which are mentioned. This makes the stated purpose misleading about the tool's true scope, as agents will expect URL-only behavior but the schema suggests it can handle many other inputs.
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 versus siblings like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description does not specify any prerequisite conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and other URL/status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 reveals only that 'Path discarded' but says nothing about whether the URL is validated, what the tool returns, whether it performs side effects, or how it handles malformed inputs. This is far too little given the lack of annotation support.
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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place, but it is borderline under-specification rather than true conciseness; still, it is structured acceptably for a simple 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?
The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the primary source of context. It fails to explain what 'shape' means, what the tool returns, which parameter to use when multiple are present, and how it relates to closely named siblings. Given this complexity, the description is markedly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema—it merely hints that 'url' is the relevant parameter, but does not clarify the roles of the other eight parameters or why they are present. It does not actively compensate for the schema's broad and seemingly unrelated parameter list.
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 ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which is clear and not a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling URL/shape tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous without more context.
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 about when to use this tool compared to its alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior, not usage, leaving the agent to guess which sibling is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the most safety-relevant behavior — no disk access — but it does not state the return shape, error behavior, or what counts as 'safe'. The one real behavioral fact it adds beyond the schema 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?
It is a two-sentence description with zero waste. The core claim is front-loaded, and the important non-obvious behavior ('No disk access') is included right after. Nothing padding could be removed without loss.
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 is simple and the schema covers all nine parameters, so it does not need a long description. However, there is no output schema and no explicit return contract; the agent must infer a boolean/verdict from 'whether,' and the description never bounds what 'looks safe' means. That leaves mild but real gaps.
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; each parameter already has a meaningful description including 'discarded' flags. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and it doesn't explicitly say that all parameters other than 'path' are irrelevant, though the schema largely conveys this.
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 + resource ('check whether a path looks safe') and adds a useful scope qualifier ('No disk access'), clearly separating this from filesystem-access paths and sister shape checks like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok. An agent knows what the tool is for without opening the schema.
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 explicit mention of when to use the tool vs alternatives, or when not to use it. The 'No disk access' note is a behavioral constraint, not real usage guidance, so an agent is left to infer that this is only for syntactic/safety checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 the tool returns latitude and longitude, but nothing else: no side effects, no input handling (despite schema notes about discarding values), no error behavior, and no indication of whether it is read-only. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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 that is front-loaded with the core function. It is efficient and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for the tool's complexity, that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue, so a score of 4 is 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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify which parameters are needed to obtain coordinates, how they are combined, what the response format is, or any constraints. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on the 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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it creates ambiguity about which parameter specifies the 'place' (e.g., city vs. query). However, since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also fails to clarify usage.
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 purpose: returning latitude and longitude for a place, using Open-Meteo. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like weather-hint (which likely provides weather data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other location-related tools, but the intent is clear.
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, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be chosen. This leaves the agent to guess which sibling (e.g., weather-hint) might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states a parse action, implicitly suggesting a read-only operation, but does not mention how invalid URLs are handled, what the exact return format is, or whether any validation, normalization, or side effects occur.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler; it states the core operation and the input resource. No information is repeated from the schema, and the structure is appropriately minimal.
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 has a non-trivial 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain which of the 9 parameters are actually used (it implies only 'url'), nor does it describe the return structure or behavior on invalid input. For a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete.
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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that the GitHub URL is the relevant input, which is not stated explicitly in parameter terms.
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 'Parse' and a clear resource 'GitHub URL', and states the outcome is owner and repo. This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape by explicit domain, even though it does not name them.
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 other shape-checking tools or alternatives. The description is a bare statement of what the tool does; it neither names sibling tools nor states conditions that would make this the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count current Hacker News front-page stories. Titles discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only adds 'Titles discarded' and does not disclose whether the call is a live read, what it returns, whether authentication is needed, or whether any side effects exist.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. 'Titles discarded' adds an important distinction about what the tool will not return, so both sentences have purpose.
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 core purpose is understandable, but the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of optional-looking parameters. The description does not clarify return value shape or whether parameters like feed are actually relevant to HN counting.
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%, which warrants the baseline score. However, the description does not explain how the nine optional parameters relate to the tool, and none of them clearly map to the HN front page source.
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 specifies a verb and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. It differentiates itself from the sibling URL/shape/date tools because the target and action are distinct.
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?
Usage is implied: use the tool when you need the count of current HN front-page stories, not the titles. It does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 no behavior: whether the call is read-only, what side effects occur, what the response contains, or what happens with the inputs. The 'discarded after' notes in the param schemas are the only behavioral hints, and they are not surfaced in the description.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a noun phrase with no structural discussion of behavior, and it omits vital information for a 9-parameter 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?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-sentence description, this tool is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer what the tool does, what it returns, or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose of IANA timezone names.
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 meaning to the parameters, and with 9 unrelated optional params, the tool's actual expected input is unclear. However, since the schema itself documents each param, the description is not forced to compensate.
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 ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'), not a statement of what the tool does. It does not specify a verb/resource relationship (e.g., 'returns', 'lists', 'validates') and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.
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 usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, and the relationship to the many sibling tools is not explained.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Fetch a public robots.txt' without mentioning that most schema parameters are discarded after checks, that the tool performs no disk access, or that it may make network requests. Agents have no idea that passing 'city' or 'json' will have no effect on output.
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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential mapping to parameters and usage context. The brevity is not an asset because it fails to earn its place by providing meaningful guidance.
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 has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only mentions robots.txt. It doesn't explain how to select the correct parameter, what 'group counts' means, or whether other parameters are accepted but ignored. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and it doesn't clarify which parameter is the robots.txt URL. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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') and resource ('public robots.txt') with a clear output ('group counts only'). However, it fails to explain how the input schema relates to this purpose; none of the nine parameters is explicitly designated as the robots.txt URL, and several parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated. This ambiguity prevents the agent from knowing what to pass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., fetch-status, web-fetch, domain-shape). It also doesn't mention whether this tool is intended for robots.txt only or for general shape-checking, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is 'Key discarded,' which is useful given the absence of annotations. Still, the description does not reveal what the tool returns for valid vs invalid shapes, whether errors are thrown, or whether any external/network activity 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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. The terse style costs it only because the missing parameter mapping and return-behavior information are required for correct invocation.
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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks the valid key format, the parameter to use, and any statement about the response on success or failure.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description fails to connect the concept of a 'Jira issue key' to any of the nine schema properties. None of the parameter names is 'key,' so without an explicit mapping the agent cannot tell whether to pass ref, query, url, or some other field.
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 a specific action and resource: check a Jira issue key shape. This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape and domain-shape. However, it never identifies which input parameter carries the key, so the purpose is clear but the invocation mapping is not.
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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when a Jira issue key shape needs to be validated, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives or selection criteria among the many sibling validation utilities.
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 wo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 explaining whether the tool is safe, readonly, destructive, or what it returns. It says nothing about behavior: no output, no side-effects, no success/failure conditions, and no hint of what happens when values are passed.
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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. A single noun phrase does not give the agent any actionable or structured guidance, especially for a tool with nine optional 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 nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is far too incomplete. The agent cannot determine which parameter to pass, what result to expect, or how this tool relates to the surrounding shape-check tooling.
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 and each parameter already has an informative description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it does not clarify which of the nine optional strings contains the 'wo' language tag or why the others are relevant.
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, not a statement of behavior: 'ISO 639 language tag wo' mostly restates the tool name in expanded form. It never says whether the tool validates, returns, checks, or normalizes that language tag, and it does nothing to distinguish it from 29 sibling 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?
There is no guidance for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as wiki-title-ok, file-path-ok, jira-key-shape, or other shape-checking tools. The name and label only weakly imply some language-tag purpose, but the agent is not told when to select it or what alternative to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HTTP status for a public library docs URL. Body discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Body discarded' and that an HTTP status is returned; it does not say whether the tool makes a real network call, whether auth is required, or what the status response looks like, leaving the safety and side-effect profile unclear.
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 short and the 'body discarded' note is front-loaded. Its brevity, however, is an symptom of under-specification rather than refined concision because it omits the tool's actual multi-parameter 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?
The output schema is absent, annotations are absent, and there are 9 optional parameters, so the description must compensate significantly. It only covers the URL/HTTP-status case and says nothing about the other parameter categories, leaving the tool inadequate for an agent to invoke 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 description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which already has 100% coverage per parameter. However, by mentioning only 'public library docs URL,' it would likely mislead an agent into choosing only the url field, ignoring the other eight valid parameters and their distinct discard behaviors.
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 (HTTP status for a public library docs URL) and mentions the body is discarded, but it aligns with only one of the nine schema parameters. The other eight parameters (city, zone, json, query, etc.) are unaddressed, making the actual tool purpose ambiguous and misleading.
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 at all about when this tool should be used instead of its siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or validate-json. An agent receives no routing hints, prerequisites, or exclusions to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count keys in a JSON object. Values discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire transparency burden. The only behavioral disclosure is 'Values discarded', which suggests a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it omits any side effects, preconditions, return description, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object') and provides a clear behavioral note ('Values discarded'). No waste, perfectly concise for a tool of this 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?
The tool has 9 heterogeneous parameters, all optional, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain how any parameter maps to a JSON object, what the output looks like, or any constraints. A very basic tool could get away with this level of description, but the parameter chaos force the agent to guess critical usage, making it highly 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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description does not clarify how the input JSON object is supplied. The 'json' parameter's description ('JSON text to be validated; discarded after check') appears to describe a validation tool rather than key counting, creating confusion. The description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the schema's lack of clarity regarding input to this tool.
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 specifies a clear action: counting keys in a JSON object, and phrases 'Values discarded' which distinguishes this from tools that return or manipulate JSON content. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling validate-json in terms of when to use it, and it doesn't clarify which of the 9 parameters provides the JSON object.
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 sibling tools like validate-json, domain-shape-check, or calc-eval. There are no explicitly described conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral detail: the URL query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention that only the `url` parameter is used and the other eight parameters are decoys that will be ignored; this is left to individual parameter descriptions, creating potential ambiguity.
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 and every phrase is needed: the main output and the dropped components. No filler or redundancy.
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 a 9-parameter schema with numerous unsaturated optional params, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient. It says what the tool returns but does not explain which parameters are actually relevant, nor account for the deceptive extra parameters, leaving the agent to puzzle through the schema descriptions to infer the right call shape.
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 already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter-level meaning except the ambiguous note that query and fragment are dropped, which may be confused with the `query` parameter. It does not clarify which field is the primary input beyond the schema's own wording.
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, 'Return', and a specific resource, 'URL', and clearly names the output components: 'origin, host, and path'. It also adds the key distinguishing behavior that query and fragment are dropped, which differentiates it from sibling URL-checking tools like browser-url-ok and web-fetch.
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 is for extracting normalized URL components, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over related tools or provide exclusion criteria. With many URL-related siblings, the agent must infer the appropriate use rather than being given concrete routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all important behavioral traits. It only states that no browser launches, but it does not say whether a network request is made, what output is produced, whether permissions are needed, or if there are side effects. This leaves the tool's behavior largely undisclosed for the agent.
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, front-loading the core action and then adding the important 'no browser' behavioral nuance. Each sentence earns its place, but for a tool with 9 parameters some additional structure would have been 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?
With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the parameters are used or discarded, the description is too sparse to let an agent know exactly how the tool behaves or what it returns. An agent would not be able to confidently call this tool correctly based on description alone.
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 parameters are already well documented by the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context and does not reconcile why city, zone, json, and feed are included in a 'URL openable' check, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema itself covers the missing detail.
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 action, 'Check whether a URL can be opened,' and the second sentence, 'No browser is launched,' helps differentiate it from browser-launching siblings like browser-url-ok. However, the nine-parameter schema contains many unrelated inputs (city, zone, json, path, etc.), which adds ambiguity to the tool's true 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?
The 'No browser is launched' sentence subtly implies use for lightweight checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternative sibling tools. Usage guidance is left mostly to inference from the tool name and this one behavioral note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count characters in a search query. Query discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It says 'Query discarded,' but that phrase is already in the schema's `query` description, so it adds little beyond the structured text. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or the effect of passing multiple parameters.
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 terse sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note about discarding. Economical and well-structured.
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 has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not state which parameter supplies the search query, what output the caller receives, or how to handle the absence of all parameters. Even with rich schema lines, an agent could not be confident it is calling the tool correctly from the tool description alone.
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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description neither adds nor removes parameter semantics, merely referring generically to 'a search query' while the actual parameter is clearly named `query` in 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 uses a clear verb ('Count characters') and a specific resource ('a search query'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as 'memory-key-count' or 'hn-front-count', so it stops short of 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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings, which parameter should be provided, or whether parameters are mutually exclusive versus combinable. With 9 optional parameters and no required field, the agent is left without usage direction.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it only says 'Short catalog...' and stops. At best, the word 'catalog' implies a read-only reference, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it performs computation, or how the nine parameters interact with the catalog. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what could be guessed.
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, but this is under-specification, not intentional conciseness. The single sentence essentially rephrases the tool name and does not earn its place by adding actionable content, resulting in a low value-to-length ratio.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameters to pass or what the response will contain, so the description is incomplete for practical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the nine parameters already has individual schema descriptions. The main description adds no semantic insight into how these parameters relate to the status-catalog concept; for instance, url, city, and json appear unrelated to status codes. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the descriptions, but the tool description fails to clarify why these parameters belong together or how they should be used.
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 the tool as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is helpful by naming the domain and distinguishing it from URL/status fetchers like fetch-status and web-fetch. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an action statement; it does not explicitly say that the tool returns a list, encodes a single status, or accepts inputs. For an agent needing to invoke it, the actual operation remains vague.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description never states when the agent should use this tool, what inputs would be appropriate for it, or which sibling tools are better alternatives. The agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a three-step thinking template. Prompt discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that the prompt is discarded, but does not mention that all parameters are likely ignored after shape checks (though schema descriptions do say this). It does not explain that the output is a generic template independent of input, nor any side effects or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
While the description is short (two sentences), it is under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence states a purpose but lacks detail, and the second sentence 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous. There is no front-loading of critical information, and the brevity forces the reader to infer too much. The description is too minimal to be considered well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the three-step template is, how to interpret it, when to use it, or how to handle the parameters. The description fails to provide a sufficient mental model for an agent to call the tool correctly or understand its output.
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 already describes each parameter as being discarded after a shape check, so the schema covers 100% of parameter meanings. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the returned template. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance or contradict 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what the template contains, why it exists, or how it differs from the many sibling utilities. The ambiguity of 'thinking template' and the unexplained 'Prompt discarded' leave the purpose unclear beyond a vague idea.
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 invoke this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions for use. The description does not say whether it is meant for structured reasoning, debugging, or something else. The only hint is 'Prompt discarded', but it does not clarify a use case.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' and does not explain what happens with the other 8 parameters (e.g., are they ignored? do they affect the result?), nor does it mention errors, timezone resolution, or output format. For a tool with no annotation context, this is a significant gap.
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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but omits essential context, making it more under-specification than genuine conciseness. Every word earns its place, but the whole is inadequate.
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 complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of the other parameters, whether they are used or discarded, or how the tool behaves with them. An agent calling this tool would be uncertain which parameter to supply and what to expect. This is far below the minimum viable definition for a tool of this complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'zone' parameter beyond restating the schema's 'IANA timezone name'. The disconnect between the description (one purpose) and the schema (9 parameters) is not clarified, so while the baseline is 3, the overall ambiguity prevents a higher score.
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 (IANA timezone) and a clear outcome (current time), which distinguishes it from generic tools. However, the input schema includes 9 parameters with only 'zone' mapping to the stated purpose; the description does not acknowledge the other parameters, leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually does and why so many inputs exist. It is not a tautology but lacks the specificity needed to fully separate it from siblings like utc-time.
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 such as 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. The description neither gives context for appropriate scenarios nor states any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and the small description, which is insufficient.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 the tool returns the current UTC timestamp but does not disclose that the input parameters are discarded or only used for shape checks. The schema descriptions individually mention this, but the tool description itself is silent, so an agent might incorrectly assume the parameters affect the output. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 with zero waste. 'Current UTC timestamp' is front-loaded and concise. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without any fluff. The extreme brevity does hurt completeness, but for the conciseness dimension, it is exemplary.
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 has a simple purpose but a complex, seemingly unrelated 9-parameter schema. The description does not explain why those parameters exist and whether they affect the output, which is critical context for an agent. There is no output schema, so the agent also doesn't know the return format (e.g., ISO 8601 vs Unix timestamp). Given the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for safe and 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?
Schema coverage is 100% – each parameter has its own description stating its purpose and that it is discarded or used for validation. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not compensate for any role the parameters play, but it doesn't need to given the schema's richness.
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 UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'timezone' (which handles timezones) and implies a returned timestamp. However, it doesn't address why the tool has nine unrelated parameters, which adds confusion. Overall, the purpose is clear but not fully explicit about the parameter anomaly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that all parameters are optional and irrelevant to the result, nor does it indicate any preconditions or when not to use it. An agent would have no sense of whether to pass a 'ref' or 'url' or simply call with no arguments.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing safety and side effects. The only behavioral disclosure is 'The body is discarded,' which indicates the input is not persisted. But the description does not mention whether the tool makes network requests, what happens to the other provided fields, or how validation errors are surfaced. The schema already states 'discarded after the check' for the json parameter, so this line adds no new information.
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 two sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and a side-effect note in the second. Both sentences are short and front-loaded with the essential idea, and no filler or verbosity is present. This is appropriately sized for the tool's stated functionality.
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 has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is expected to provide enough context to invoke it correctly. It fails to explain which parameter carries the JSON, why the other eight parameters exist, or what the result looks like. An agent cannot reliably determine whether to use 'json,' 'path,' or some other parameter, nor what validation success/failure returns.
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 meaning about which parameter to use or how to construct a valid request beyond what the schema already states. The presence of unrelated fields (url, city, feed, etc.) is not explained, and the description does not clarify whether those are ignored inputs or part of a broader validation structure.
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 identifies the action: validating JSON ('Check whether a body is valid JSON'). It names a specific resource and verb, and the focus on JSON distinguishes it from sibling tools that check file paths, URLs, or timezones. However, it never explicitly compares to or disambiguates from those siblings, and the vague term 'body' leaves room for confusion against the schema's multiple 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 versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how to select between it and sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'wiki-title-ok'. There is also no mention of prerequisites or typical invocation patterns. The agent is left to infer from the name that this is for JSON validation, but nothing helps disambiguate it from the other checkers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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. It only mentions that the tool uses Open-Meteo, hinting at an external API call, but fails to disclose side effects, data retention (e.g., parameters are discarded), or any limitations. The schema descriptions provide some clarity on discard behavior, but the description itself is silent, leaving the agent uninformed about operational traits.
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 waste, which is good. However, it is so brief that it fails to convey the tool's actual versatility, making it under-specified. While conciseness is appreciated, the lack of structured information about the other parameters reduces its effectiveness. A slightly longer description with clear usage would be more appropriate given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It only covers the weather use case, ignoring the other parameters that likely enable distinct functions (e.g., URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone checks). Without explaining these, an agent cannot correctly determine when to invoke the tool for those tasks. The lack of output schema and minimal description leaves key operational details 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by naming 'city' as the key parameter, but this is already documented in the schema. It provides no extra context for the other eight parameters, which remain unexplained in the description, nor does it clarify the tool's multi-functional nature.
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 primary function: returning the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It specifies a verb (retrieve) and resource (temperature), which sets clear expectations. However, it does not mention the other eight parameters, suggesting the tool may serve additional purposes, which creates ambiguity about its full scope.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or sibling tools. An agent cannot infer whether to prefer this over similar tools like geo-hint or timezone, or when to invoke it for non-weather parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HTTP status and content type for a public URL. Body discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the body is discarded. It does not mention behavior regarding redirects, authentication, rate limits, or what is returned beyond status and content type. Moreover, the schema includes 9 parameters (e.g., city, zone, query) that are completely unrelated to the description, suggesting the tool may have additional purposes that are left unstated. This lack of disclosure creates confusion and undermines 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in one sentence and adding the body-discard behavior in a second. No wasted words. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), the description might benefit from a brief mention of the broader functionality, but as written it is appropriately short and focused.
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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only one use case (fetching a URL), while the parameters suggest additional functions like timezone lookups, JSON validation, and search-length checks. The description fails to explain these other capabilities or how they interact, leaving an agent unable to determine when to use this tool for those cases. For a tool with this complexity, the description is 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond that. While the schema descriptions clarify individual parameters (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), the tool description does not integrate them into an overall understanding. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 core action: fetching a public URL to obtain HTTP status and content type, with body discarded. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url. The purpose is unambiguous and uses a specific verb and resource.
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 usage for checking HTTP status and content type of a public URL, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferable. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a Wikipedia title exists. Title discarded after the call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
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 only notes 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a thin behavioral hint, and it is itself confusing because no parameter is named 'title.' It does not disclose what 'ok' means, what the return value is, or how the nine parameters behave.
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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. However, the 'Title discarded after the call' sentence is questionable given that no title parameter exists, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient structure.
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?
This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, yet the description gives no explanation of the parameters, the meaning of the boolean result, or the tool's actual scope. The description appears mismatched with the schema (a generic validator) and is wholly inadequate for an agent to call the 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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides — and worse, it introduces 'Wikipedia title' semantics that no parameter supports. The description fails to bridge the stated purpose to any of the actual parameters, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema's individual field 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 states a clear verb+resource ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but this purpose does not align with the input schema, which contains nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) — none of which is a Wikipedia title. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters undermines clarity about what the tool truly does.
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 versus siblings like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, web-fetch, or citation. Given the many similar validation/checking tools in the sibling list, an agent has no way to know which one to select without inspecting schemas.
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.
agent-tool-indexbrowser-url-okcalc-evalcitationcompatibilitydomain-shapefetch-statusfigma-url-shapefile-path-okgeo-hintgithub-repo-shapehn-front-countiana-zonesinspect-robotsjira-key-shapelang-wolib-docs-hintmemory-key-countnormalize-urlplaywright-url-oksearch-query-lenstatus-catalogthink-stepstimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonweather-hintweb-fetchwiki-title-okClaiming 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!