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?
The description adds one useful behavioral detail: 'The body is discarded,' which implies no persistence or side effects. However, there are no annotations and the description does not disclose what happens for invalid JSON (e.g., error vs. false return), leaving the return behavior unclear.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds a meaningful behavioral note about discarding the body, so every sentence 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 has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return value, error behavior, or how the 'body' maps to the input schema. The unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) create confusion that the description does not resolve, leaving the agent under-equipped to call the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description refers to 'a body' but does not explicitly map that to the 'json' parameter, nor does it clarify the role of the url, host, and zone parameters.
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') and clearly identifies JSON validation as the function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, though 'body' is slightly ambiguous and could be replaced with 'json parameter'.
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 conditions that would make a sibling tool more appropriate. The sibling list is provided but the description does not route the agent toward or away from any tool.
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 occupy overlapping territory: rfc3339-now and utc-time both return current UTC time, while citation and normalize-url both surface host/scheme metadata for URLs. The compatibility tool is also vague and could be confused with citation's request classification role.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is inconsistent: citation, timezone, and status-catalog are noun-style, while normalize-url, inspect-robots, and validate-json are verb-style. There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a toolkit that spans time, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. However, the near-duplicate time and URL utilities could likely be consolidated without losing capability.
The toolset covers its apparent privacy-focused metadata utilities well: current time, timezone names, URL shape, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation. Minor gaps like timezone conversion or custom timestamp formatting exist, but agents can work around them.