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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the tool fetches a public resource and returns counts. It says nothing about failure modes, size or rate limits, side effects, or what happens when the json or zone parameters are supplied.
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?
One short sentence with no filler; the core action and output scope are front-loaded. The description earns its place, though the resulting under-specification is captured in other dimensions.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that does not explain how the parameters map to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the description and the schema leaves an agent with no reliable way 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning and actually conflicts with the schema: it promises a robots.txt fetch while url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and json as text to 'validate; discarded after the check.' An agent cannot tell which parameter supplies the robots.txt source, making invocation a guess.
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?
States a specific action (Fetch) on a specific resource (public robots.txt) and constrains the output to 'group counts only,' giving the tool a distinct job beyond the name. However, the connection between this purpose and the four input parameters is never established, which slightly undermines clarity.
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 its siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The 'only' in 'return group counts only' hints at a scoping preference but is not developed into usable routing guidance.
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 target distinct concerns such as URL normalization, robots parsing, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. A few URL/HTTP utilities overlap in input type, but descriptions clarify differences: citation adds HTTP status, normalize-url drops query/fragment, and domain-shape focuses on hostname labels.
Names consistently use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix noun-style names like status-catalog and timezone with verb-style names like inspect-robots and validate-json. There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a mixed utility server covering URLs, HTTP, JSON, and time. A few entries like mime-json and compatibility feel marginal, but the overall count is not bloated.
The surface covers URL inspection, robots, HTTP status codes, JSON validation, and timezone utilities without obvious dead ends. Some related web utilities are absent, but the privacy-focused descriptions suggest those are intentionally excluded.