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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect (the body is discarded), but it does not specify the return value, response format, or error behavior for invalid JSON. This partial disclosure is helpful but not complete.
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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the side-effect stated immediately after. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 is mostly adequate for a simple validation tool, but it does not clarify the roles of the unrelated url, host, and zone parameters that appear in the schema, nor does it specify the return behavior since there is no output schema. This leaves some ambiguity about which parameters actually apply and what the caller receives.
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 of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the 'json' parameter is already well-described in the schema as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'.
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 ('Check whether') and resource ('a body') and clearly states the tool's scope: JSON validity validation with the body discarded. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or cite-url, whose purposes involve transformation or citation rather than validation.
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 'The body is discarded' provides clear context that this tool is for validation only, not for extraction or further processing. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given, but the intended use case is unambiguous.
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.