UTC month name
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It offers one useful behavioral guarantee ('Page content is not stored'), but omits other side effects, error behavior, or any mention of network requests, rate limits, or permissions.
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, using two short sentences with no redundant words or fluff. It front-loads the core functionality and adds a brief privacy-relevant caveat.
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 too sparse for the apparent complexity of the schema. It does not explain how the four parameters relate, which parameters are required, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. The mismatched parameters make the context incomplete.
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 confusing and inconsistent with the tool description. While url relates to the stated purpose, host, json, and zone appear unrelated or mismatched; json and zone seem copied from other tools. The schema provides no coherent meaning for these parameters in the context of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status.
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 clearly states the primary action and result: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated sibling tools like validate-json or utc-time, though it does not explicitly contrast with normalize-url or status-catalog.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as normalize-url or status-catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'No identifiers are retained,' which hints at privacy but does not disclose side effects, data handling, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavioral characteristics remain largely opaque.
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, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to read.
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?
Given the four parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what 'classified' means, the expected output format, or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), giving basic meaning. The description adds no further clarification on how these parameters contribute to classification, so it stays at the baseline score.
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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not clearly specify the tool's function or what kind of classification is performed. It lacks a strong action verb and a defined resource, making it difficult to distinguish from other tools without additional context.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or comparisons to alternatives such as validate-json or normalize-url, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses only that it works 'without WHOIS or data', but it fails to explain the tool's actual behavior or side effects. More critically, the parameter descriptions in the schema are unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' for a hostname-splitting tool), which is highly misleading for agents.
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 concise, but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is vague and disrupts the clarity of the sentence. It could be more effectively structured by omitting that ambiguous clause.
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 incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the 'split hostname' function, and the mismatched parameter descriptions create confusion. The tool lacks any explanation of expected input format or output.
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 description does not explain what the parameters (url, host, json, zone) mean for this tool. The schema descriptions are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose, adding no meaningful context. An agent cannot infer which parameter is the hostname to split.
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 clearly states the action ('split a hostname into labels'), which is specific and understandable. However, the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' adds ambiguity, detracting slightly from the 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, read-only behavior, network access, or output behavior, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not disclose any behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, though its brevity contributes to incompleteness rather than inefficiency.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance, the description is far from complete enough for an agent to reliably know what the tool returns, how to invoke it, or when to select it.
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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but the tool description does not clarify how url, host, and json relate to iana-zones, leaving the parameter roles ambiguous and potentially misleading.
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 conveys that the tool relates to common IANA timezone names for clock calls, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', making the exact operation inferable rather than stated.
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 provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like timezone or utc-time, nor is there any indication of appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it performs a read-only operation. The agent is left to infer that fetching a public file is safe and non-destructive.
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 extraordinarily concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the action and expected output. It does not waste words and is well-structured.
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?
Given the minimal description and the grossly mismatched parameter definitions, the tool is under-specified. The agent has no idea how to set the parameters or what 'group counts' refers to, making the description insufficient for correct usage in context.
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 completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', which are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt. The description fails to provide any meaningful semantics for the parameters, leaving the agent confused about how to invoke the 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 clearly states the action (fetch), the target resource (public robots.txt), and the nature of the output (group counts only). It is concise and unambiguous enough to understand the primary purpose, though the exact meaning of 'group counts' is slightly vague.
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. It is a single declarative sentence with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
UTC month name
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, what output it returns, or any error behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide any behavioral clarity.
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 but omits essential information. While brevity is positive, the lack of a verb, subject, and parameter context makes the structure ineffective for an agent trying to understand the tool.
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 incomplete for the tool's apparent purpose. It does not mention expected input format, return value, timezone handling, or any relationship to the provided schema parameters, leaving too much unspecified for reliable use.
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 schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions that seem unrelated to a 'month-name' tool, such as 'JSON text to validate' and 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. No parameter description explains how any of these inputs relate to obtaining or formatting a month name.
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?
Description 'UTC month name' has no verb and does not specify what the tool does with input parameters. It is ambiguous whether it returns the current month, formats a date, or extracts a month from a timestamp, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones, but the description gives no indication of appropriate use cases or when this tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source. It implies a pure function (returning a normalized URL) with no side effects, but does not explicitly mention idempotency, errors, or any state changes. Given the lack of annotations, the description gives moderate transparency but leaves room for inference.
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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality and the exclusion of query/fragment. It is highly concise with no filler words, making it easy to interpret quickly.
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 omits critical context for correct usage. It does not mention what input format is expected, whether the output is a string or object, how errors are handled, or any examples. Additionally, the misleading parameter descriptions add confusion rather than completeness. Overall, the tool is not adequately contextualized for an agent to invoke it reliably.
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 completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. The tool normalizes URLs, yet the parameters include 'json' (JSON text to validate) and 'zone' (IANA timezone name), which are irrelevant. The 'url' description mentions 'normalize or cite' which is vague, and 'host' is ambiguous. This severely impairs an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'origin, host, and path for a URL', plus what is dropped. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'timezone', although it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice over related tools like 'validate-json' or 'status-catalog'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral traits—no indication of whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs network calls, has rate limits, or produces side effects. The parameter descriptions suggest behaviors from other tools (URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone handling) but nothing is disclosed about the actual behavior of this tool.
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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean and brief. However, the brevity works against clarity here—the one sentence provides only a vague noun-phrase purpose without explaining the operation or parameter linkage. It is concise but not effectively informative.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (four parameters with seemingly unrelated purposes), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the catalog functionality, what the expected input/output format is, or any usage examples. Without an output schema or additional context, an agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this 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?
While schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, those descriptions are semantically mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. Parameters like 'url' (HTTPS URL to normalize or cite), 'json' (JSON text to validate), and 'zone' (IANA timezone name) have nothing to do with an HTTP status code catalog, and no parameter exists that would logically query status codes. The descriptions actively mislead rather than clarify.
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 the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which gives a general topic but no clear verb or operation (lookup, list, filter?). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, and the stated purpose conflicts with the parameter names—none of which relate to status codes. This creates significant ambiguity about what the tool actually does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain how the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone) would be used to access the status code catalog, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url. No usage context is provided at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the result. It does not explain what happens with an invalid or missing zone, whether the url/host/json parameters are ignored, or what format the returned time takes.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundant wording.
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?
Despite the simple purpose, there are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. The presence of four unrelated-looking parameters, no required fields, and no guidance on output or error behavior makes the definition incomplete for confident invocation.
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 schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning and does not clarify that url, host, and json appear unrelated to the timezone operation, though the zone parameter is self-explanatory.
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 clearly states the tool returns the current time in a named IANA timezone, identifying both the operation and the resource. It is distinct from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.
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 implies the use case: obtaining the current time for a specific IANA zone rather than UTC. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the nominal function and fails to disclose potential side effects, permissions, or the fact that the parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose.
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 brief ('Current UTC timestamp.'), which is concise but insufficiently informative. It avoids verbosity but omits critical details about parameters and usage, striking an unbalanced minimalism.
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?
Given the presence of four parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what these parameters do, why they exist, or how they interact with the tool's core function, leaving the overall context utterly ambiguous.
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 (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') are entirely mismatched with the tool's stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. The tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to its function, making them semantically meaningless in this context.
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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's purpose as returning the current UTC time. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) introduces confusion about the actual functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 (e.g., timezone, month-name). No conditions or edge cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently notes that the body is discarded, indicating no persistence. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as network calls, rate limits, or whether the validation is local or remote, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 front-loaded, stating the core action and the disposal of the body in a single sentence. No unnecessary words or verbose explanations.
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 specify what output the tool produces (e.g., boolean, error message), how the json parameter relates to the other parameters, or any prerequisites like valid URL formats. The mismatched parameter descriptions further reduce completeness, making it hard for an agent to understand the full scope of 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 largely irrelevant to the tool's purpose. The url, host, and zone parameters have descriptions like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'IANA timezone name' which have no apparent connection to JSON validation. Only the json parameter description aligns with the tool's function, but the others are misleading.
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 the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, which aligns with the tool name. However, it is ambiguous what 'body' refers to; the json parameter is the likely candidate but not explicitly identified, causing slight confusion.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus other tools like citation or normalize-url. The description does not mention any specific use case or conditions that would make this tool preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotsmonth-namenormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering URL analysis, time/date, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation with no significant overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention, matching the style across the entire set with no mixed casing or underscores.
The set of 11 tools is reasonable for a general-purpose utility server, providing a moderate breadth without feeling bloated or sparse.
The domain appears to be 'web developer utilities,' and while it covers common needs like URL handling, time, HTTP status, and JSON, some expected utilities (e.g., base64, HTML escaping) are missing, making it slightly incomplete.