Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that the body is discarded, which hints at no persistence, but it does not state what happens on invalid JSON (e.g., return value, error behavior) or whether any side effects occur. No annotations are provided to fill this 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 top-level description is brief and to the point, with the second sentence adding useful information about the body being discarded. No extraneous words are present in the description itself, though the parameter descriptions are verbose and misleading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context: it does not explain what 'body' refers to, what the input parameters (especially the irrelevant ones) are for, what the return value or output format is, or how to invoke the tool. The tool is not self-contained or comprehensible enough for an agent to use 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 parameter descriptions are grossly mismatched with the tool's purpose: 'url', 'host', and 'zone' are described as being about URL normalization, hostnames, and timezones—none relevant to JSON validation. Only 'json' is clearly relevant, but its description is redundant and confusing. The schema does not meaningfully explain the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') but the resource is vague ('a body'), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog beyond the verb. The tool name helps, but the description alone is only moderately 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor any indication of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but 'citation' and 'compatibility' have vague descriptions that could overlap with HTTP status handling, and 'status-catalog' adds further potential confusion. URL-related tools are distinguishable but require careful reading.
All names consistently use lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix noun phrases like 'timezone' and 'status-catalog' with verb-object forms like 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json'. This is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 11 tools, the set is reasonably sized and not overwhelming. Each tool appears to serve a single utility purpose, fitting the apparent web-utility domain.
The collection covers common web development utilities: URL handling, HTTP status, time, timezone, JSON validation, robots.txt inspection, and language tags. There are no major dead ends, though the server name 'Language zh' does not strongly align with the broader tool set.