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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful side-effect information. However, it does not mention whether validation is purely syntactic, whether it returns a boolean or error, or whether any other side effects occur.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second discloses the discard behavior. There is no redundant filler or unnecessary detail.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is noticeably sparse. It does not clarify which input parameter should be used as the 'body', what a successful or failed validation looks like, or how the result is returned. The schema partially compensates, but the overall definition lacks enough context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the word 'body', but the schema's 'json' field already clarifies that the JSON text is what gets validated and discarded. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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') and resource ('a body is valid JSON'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, and 'body' is slightly ambiguous, but the intent is unmistakable.
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 description states only what the tool does, not when it should be chosen or avoided.
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.