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 present, and the description does not mention side effects, network behavior, error handling, or output format. It only hints at the return being 'group counts only', which is insufficient.
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 main description is concise, but the parameter descriptions add noise and confusion due to their irrelevance. The overall structure is compact but not coherent.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the parameters do not align with the stated purpose. The tool definition is incomplete and likely erroneous, leaving the agent without essential context.
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?
Although the schema provides descriptions for all parameters, they are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'json' is described as validation text and 'zone' as timezone, both irrelevant to fetching robots.txt. This misleads the agent severely.
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 action: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like citation or validate-json, though the parameter list seems mismatched.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about robots.txt inspection. The description is too terse to convey appropriate use cases.
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 overlap in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname details, while timezone and utc-time both provide time-related data. This creates ambiguity and potential misselection.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated descriptors (domain-shape, normalize-url), and odd forms like sha1-ok. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or naming convention.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the collection feels like an arbitrary bundle of unrelated utilities rather than a focused server, making the count seem heavier than justified.
The tools span URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and hashing, but no coherent domain emerges. As a result, it is unclear what workflow is being supported, and obvious coverage gaps exist for any single intended purpose.