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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch a public robots.txt' implies a network read, and 'return group counts only' indicates a filtered response, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential blocking, error behavior, or security considerations (e.g., SSRF) when fetching arbitrary public URLs, nor does it state what happens if the robots.txt is missing.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and adds a precise output constraint ('return group counts only'). 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?
The tool is simple in concept, but with no output schema and four seemingly mismatched parameters (url, host, json, zone), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to robots.txt fetching, nor what 'group counts' precisely refers to. Given the missing behavioral context and parameter ambiguity, the description leaves an agent with material gaps.
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 provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear irrelevant to fetching a robots.txt, yet the description does not explain why they exist or which ones are actually used. This ambiguity limits the value added.
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 fetches a public robots.txt and returns group counts only, which is a specific verb, resource, and limitation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like citation, and the name 'inspect-robots' already suggests the behavior, so it could benefit from more differentiation.
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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, focusing only on what it does. It does not mention when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. With siblings like citation, an agent might be uncertain whether to use this tool for robots.txt inspection versus citation for general URL normalization.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs and return host/scheme information, while compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The time tools are distinct but cluster together, making the overall set boundary-unclear for an agent.
Tool names mix single nouns like citation and timezone with hyphenated noun-noun forms like domain-shape and status-catalog, plus verb-noun forms like normalize-url and validate-json. There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but several are extremely narrow utilities such as port-443 and utc-time. The count is not excessive, though the set feels slightly padded with trivial helpers.
The server seems to target a loose mix of web/HTTP, URL, time, and JSON utilities, and covers those niches at a basic level. However, core HTTP operations like fetching headers or inspecting responses are absent, and the overall domain is unclear enough that significant gaps are easy to imagine.