Transparent public utilities for agents. Requests are counted without storing identifiers.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the useful privacy note 'Page content is not stored,' but it does not disclose whether a network request is made, side effects, failure modes, or the behavior associated with the json and zone parameters.
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 two sentences are concise and the privacy note earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the primary function, though it omits important mode context.
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?
For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains only the URL path and omits JSON-validation and timezone behaviors, return structure for those modes, and error/edge-case handling.
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 is 3. The description adds no meaning for json or zone and its URL-only framing could mislead, but it does not contradict the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
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 concrete outcome—'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'—so it is not a tautology. However, the input schema includes json and zone parameters that the description never mentions, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json.
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 gives no guidance on when to use citation versus siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json, or timezone. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides one useful behavioral trait — 'No identifiers are retained' — but doesn't disclose whether requests are sent externally, whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output looks like.
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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, so the brevity is closer to omission than to efficient packaging.
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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and nine siblings, yet the description explains almost nothing about how the inputs are used, what classification means, or what the response contains. An agent would not know how to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its result.
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 is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to the classification. The schema already documents each field's basic type and name, so the description adds no extra value here.
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 verb and object: 'Show how this request is classified.' This is more than a tautology, but 'classified' is vague and doesn't define the classification scheme, what inputs drive it, or what categories result. It also doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the inputs alone.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one limitation (no WHOIS/ownership data) but says nothing about output format, error handling, or side effects, and does not clarify which input parameter feeds the hostname.
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 sentence is tight and front-loaded with the core action, so there is no clutter. But the tool has a four-parameter schema and no output schema; one sentence is too terse to be fully actionable, so this leans toward under-specification.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavior and parameters, yet it covers only the split operation. The presence of json and zone params is unexplained, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous and incomplete for an agent.
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%, but the schema describes four unrelated params (url, host, json, zone). The description only adds meaning to the host param as the input for splitting; url, json, and zone remain unexplained and appear inconsistent with the described operation, leaving the agent unsure what to supply.
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 names a specific verb and object: split a hostname into labels, which is immediately understandable. It also adds a negative scope boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json.
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 'split a hostname into labels' implies when to use it, and 'without WHOIS or ownership data' gives a clear exclusion. However, it never states when to prefer an alternative sibling tool or what conditions make this the wrong choice.
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 available, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the subject matter; it does not disclose whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, makes a network request, or has side effects. Minimal behavioral context is provided beyond the content area.
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 text is very short and has no filler, but it is a fragment rather than a complete tool description. The brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient coverage of the tool's purpose, so it does not earn a high structure score.
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?
For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or how it relates to sibling timezone tools, leaving an agent unable to call 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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about which parameters apply to iana-zones or how 'zone' relates to the list, and the presence of url/host/json is left unexplained, but the schema itself is self-documenting.
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 names a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a domain ('clock calls'), so it is not merely a restatement of the tool name. However, it lacks a verb or action such as 'returns', 'lists', or 'validates', leaving the actual operation ambiguous and not clearly differentiated from sibling timezone 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 phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings such as timezone or utc-time. An agent cannot tell whether this is a lookup list to consult before those calls or a tool that performs its own operation.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a public resource, but it does not mention network behavior, error handling, rate limits, caching, or what happens when the robots.txt is unavailable.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits parameter relevance and output details, so it is concise but slightly under-specified.
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?
With no output schema and a confusing four-parameter schema, the description should clarify which parameters apply and what 'group counts' means. It does neither, leaving an agent likely to pass unrelated or incomplete arguments.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are mismatched with the tool's stated purpose: 'json' and 'zone' are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt, and the URL/host descriptions are not framed as robots.txt inputs. The description adds no parameter-to-purpose mapping.
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 a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the expected output ('return group counts only'). It is distinct enough from the sibling tools, though 'group counts' is not fully defined.
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 such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or compatibility. No conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios are provided.
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?
The description discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, which is beyond what annotations (none) provide. However, it does not state the return format, error handling for invalid URLs, or how the host/json/zone inputs affect behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially meets it.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key output concept and the main transformation are stated immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must fully specify behavior, but it leaves the role of three of four input parameters unexplained and omits output details. For a tool with four optional parameters, this is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The missing return format is especially relevant since the tool is expected to produce structured URL components.
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 actually creates confusion by listing 'host' as an output while the schema defines 'host' as an input parameter. It adds no meaning for json or zone and does not explain whether these are alternate modes or ignored inputs. The per-parameter schema descriptions are too terse to resolve this ambiguity.
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 operation ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and even notes a concrete transformation (query and fragment are dropped). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like validate-json or timezone, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The description does not explain the unrelated json/zone parameters, so purpose is only partially scoped.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description only implies the tool is for extracting normalized URL components, and none of the sibling alternatives (citation, domain-shape) are referenced. An agent receives no direction for choosing between this and related URL/domain tools.
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, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool is a short catalog, which implies a read-only reference but does not state whether it accepts input, makes network calls, returns a list, or has any 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 a single short sentence that immediately states the tool's subject. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it is terse enough that it omits important usage and invocation information.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and four optional but seemingly mismatched parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not say what the catalog contains exactly, how the parameters affect results, or what kind of response the agent should expect.
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 is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter meaning. However, the schema's parameter descriptions (URL, hostname, JSON, timezone) appear unrelated to HTTP status codes, which weakens their practical value for an agent trying to invoke this 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 identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a specific subject and distinguishes it from the sibling tools focused on URLs, timezones, and JSON. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-based operation statement, so it does not fully say what the tool 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools such as validate-json, normalize-url, or iana-zones. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing hints.
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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read-only time lookup, but does not describe the return format, timezone database behavior, or handling of invalid/absent zone values.
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?
A single clean sentence that earns its place, front-loading the tool's core purpose with no filler words or structural clutter.
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 definition is incomplete for the messy context: no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema containing unrelated optional parameters. The description does not explain the expected return value or resolve the parameter ambiguity, leaving an agent to guess how to 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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, three of the four parameters (url, host, json) describe operations unrelated to timezone lookup and are optional. The description does not clarify that zone is the sole relevant parameter, so an agent receives misleading or ambiguous parameter guidance.
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 and resource: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time (UTC current time) and iana-zones (zone names).
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?
It clearly implies the use case: when the agent needs the current time in an IANA zone rather than UTC. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the IANA qualifier gives enough context to route correctly among the siblings.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not mention whether parameters are ignored, what form the timestamp takes, or that the operation is safe. The unrelated input schema makes this lack of behavioral detail more problematic.
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-loads the core value proposition. There is no filler, though the brevity borders on under-specification. As a purely concise statement it is effective.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an apparently mismatched parameter list, a five-word description is not enough. The agent lacks information about return format, parameter handling, and when this tool is preferred over siblings, making the overall 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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but those parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to fetching a current UTC timestamp. The description adds no explanation of how or whether these parameters affect the call, leaving the agent unable to determine correct invocation.
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 UTC timestamp, which is a specific and identifiable outcome. The UTC qualifier helps distinguish it from timezone-related sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb phrase.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the timezone or iana-zones siblings. It also does not explain whether the four optional parameters are relevant, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what scenarios call for this tool.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful side-effect disclosure ('The body is discarded'), but it does not explain the result format, error behavior, or how invalid JSON is signaled, which matters for a validation 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?
Two short, direct sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarding the body follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a schema containing mostly irrelevant parameters, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot confidently determine which parameter to populate, what successful validation returns, or whether invalid JSON produces an error or a boolean result.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, three of the four parameters (url, host, zone) are unrelated to JSON validation, creating confusion. The description does not clarify that the 'body' corresponds to the 'json' parameter, nor does it explain whether the other parameters are ignored or used in some way.
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's action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a key behavioral outcome ('The body is discarded'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all concern URLs, zones, robots, or time rather than JSON 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The purpose implies 'use when you need to validate JSON,' but the description does not explicitly frame it as a validation step before other operations.
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-robotsnormalize-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!
Anonymous public tools for BetterOff. See the published agent boundary before use.
Anonymous public tools for FlightSweeper. See the published agent boundary before use.
Anonymous public tools for ZacharyR0th. See the published agent boundary before use.
Anonymous public tools for Raintree Technology. See the published agent boundary before use.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but there is overlap in the URL/time clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all involve host/scheme data, while timezone and utc-time both return current time. The vague compatibility tool also adds ambiguity.
Names mix noun-only forms (citation, timezone), verb-object forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound nouns (iana-zones, status-catalog, utc-time). There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count for a general-purpose utility server. Each tool is lightweight and the set is neither bloated nor too sparse.
The domain is an open-ended 'utility index,' so completeness is hard to define; it covers URL handling, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation. However, obvious common utilities like hashing, encoding, or string operations are absent, leaving notable gaps for a general utility server.
