Skip to main content
Glama

Punycode host check

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

punycode-ok

Punycode host check

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits, but it discloses nothing: no network usage, no side effects, no determinism, no output format, no failure modes. 'Host check' only vaguely implies a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It provides no front-loaded action, no parameter guidance, and no example, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a cluster of related sibling tools, a three-word description is far from complete. The agent cannot determine input selection, expected behavior, return value, or safety profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each individual parameter is described in the schema. However, the tool description itself does not clarify which of the ten parameters is relevant for the punycode check, nor how they interact, leaving the agent to guess among host, url, website, and others.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Punycode host check' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'punycode-ok' and does not state a specific verb or outcome. It fails to say what is checked about the host (syntax, encoding, resolvability, safety) or what result the agent should expect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 siblings like domain-shape, browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description does not mention when punycode-specific checking is needed or what alternatives exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Punycode host check toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources