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 full burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note, but it says nothing about return values, error handling on invalid JSON, or any limits. For a validation tool, the result format is a critical missing piece.
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. It efficiently communicates the core action and the discard behavior in just a few words.
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 with none required, no output schema, and the description does not explain what validation result is produced or how the unrelated url/host/zone parameters should be used. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool or interpret its 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning for url, host, or zone, and those parameters appear unrelated to validating JSON. The tool description only acknowledges the json body, leaving three parameters unexplained and effectively orphaned in the context of 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url or timezone tools. However, the input schema lists unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) that muddy the tool's identity and are not reflected in the description.
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, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The note that 'the body is discarded' is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.
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.
Most tools have distinct outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both return host information, timezone/utc-time/iana-zones all revolve around time, and domain-shape/punycode-ok both target hostnames. An agent would need to read descriptions carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
Naming style is inconsistent: some names are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), some are nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), and some are quirky compounds (punycode-ok, iana-zones). The consistent lowercase/hyphen formatting is the only pattern.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the server is named for punycode host checking while many tools are unrelated URL, time, and JSON utilities. The set feels padded rather than deliberately scoped.
The tool surface has no coherent domain to be complete against: a punycode host checker would need at least IDN conversion or comparison, while the URL/time/JSON utilities appear as unrelated extras. Significant coverage gaps would likely force agents to combine or externalize work.