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?
The description implies a read-only fetch but does not explicitly state side effects or privacy/security considerations. No annotations are provided to fill this gap.
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 extremely brief, but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. While it is concise, it omits details that would make the tool usable.
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 description is incomplete: it does not explain what 'group counts' means, how parameters relate to the task, or what the output format is. The mismatch between parameter descriptions and the tool's purpose leaves significant gaps.
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?
The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'url' described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' instead of indicating a robots.txt URL). The tool description does not clarify the purpose of any parameter, making it impossible to understand how to use them correctly.
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) and the resource (public robots.txt) and specifies the output (group counts only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which deal with robots.txt.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or comparisons to sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.
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 inputs and outputs, but citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, while timezone, tz-america-chicago, and utc-time all return current time. Descriptions clarify the differences, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog or citation.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is readable, but they mix verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog. There is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'America/Chicago clock' only four tools relate to time. The remaining seven URL, HTTP, robots, and JSON utilities are off-purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The time-related tools cover current time in Chicago, UTC, named IANA zones, and a zone list, so the clock core is usable. However, there is no timezone conversion or date arithmetic, and the unrelated utilities do not form a coherent broader domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete.