Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the core behavior (fetching and counting groups) but omits any side effects, error handling, or permissions. More critically, the parameter descriptions are clearly mismatched, making the tool's expected inputs misleading and undermining 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 extremely concise and to the point, using a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's function without extraneous detail.
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 such as what constitutes a 'group' or how the counts are returned. Given the mismatched parameter descriptions, the tool is far from complete; a user would be confused about how to actually invoke 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?
The parameter descriptions in the schema are entirely inconsistent with the tool's purpose: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'. These descriptions actively mislead and provide no accurate meaning for a robots.txt inspection 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 states a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a specific result ('return group counts only'), clearly distinguishing this tool from generic URL or validation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, and the sibling tools list is not referenced. Users are left to infer the appropriate context without any explicit direction.
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.
Each tool name and description clearly targets a distinct function (URL parsing, timezone lookup, JSON validation, etc.), with no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated format (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'status-catalog'), following a uniform naming convention.
11 tools is a reasonable number for a general utility set, though some tools (like 'citation' and 'compatibility') seem abstract and may overlap conceptually with others.
The server name 'Miles to kilometers' implies a unit conversion focus, but none of the tools perform any unit conversion. The toolset is a hodgepodge of unrelated utilities, making it incomplete for its stated purpose.