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 does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The phrase 'body is discarded' suggests no persistence, but there is no explanation of what happens after validation or any potential side effects.
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 brief but fails to convey essential information. It lacks a clear structure and does not front-load the most critical details about the tool's operation.
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 no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error handling, or any post-validation behavior. The agent has no idea what to expect after calling the tool.
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 copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url) and are not aligned with the stated JSON validation purpose. There is no clear explanation of how each parameter relates to the tool's function.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but the parameters include url, host, json, and zone, which are unrelated to JSON validation. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and potentially 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. The lack of any usage context leaves the agent without direction for selecting this tool.
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.