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 discloses that the body is discarded, but it does not explain the return value, behavior on invalid JSON, validation strictness, or whether errors are raised. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers behavioral implications.
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 text is concise and free of fluff, but the brevity contributes to ambiguity around the 'body' wording and the unexplained extra parameters. It is short but not optimally clear.
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 lacks any explanation of output format, success/failure behavior, or how to interpret the result. The mismatched parameter list is not reconciled, and there is no example or additional context, making the overall description incomplete for an agent.
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 every parameter has a schema description, most are unrelated to the stated purpose: url/host/zone appear to be copied from another tool and have no relevance to JSON validation. The description adds no clarification for these parameters and does not explain the relationship between 'body' and 'json'.
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 the core action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') and that the body is discarded, but it refers to a 'body' instead of the actual 'json' parameter and leaves the purpose of the unrelated url/host/zone parameters unclear. This makes the purpose only partially clear.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The only implicit usage is 'when you need to validate JSON', which is minimal.
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.