Current local time in America/Denver.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or what happens with invalid URLs, so transparency is only partial. No annotations are provided to supplement this.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured with the primary action and output first, followed by a clarifying note. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 for the full context of the tool. It does not explain the extra parameters or how they relate to the core functionality. This makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information, especially given the mismatch between the described behavior and the schema.
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 description only explains the 'url' parameter implicitly by mentioning 'a URL.' The other three parameters (host, json, zone) are not explained at all, leaving their purpose completely unclear. This is a significant gap given that the schema lists four parameters and the description covers only one.
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 verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also includes a helpful clarification that page content is not stored, which distinguishes it from content-fetching tools. The purpose is unambiguous and easy to understand.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The statement 'No identifiers are retained' provides some transparency about data handling, but does not describe other behaviors such as side effects, read-only nature, or whether any state is modified. With no annotations present, the description carries partial responsibility for behavioral disclosure.
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 concise, consisting of a single sentence, and is well-structured. However, it is too brief to convey essential information, balancing conciseness against informativeness poorly.
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?
Given the presence of four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what the classification result looks like, or what the tool actually returns.
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?
While each parameter has a schema description, these descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') do not align with the tool's stated purpose of classification. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving their role in classification unclear.
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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification or what request is being referenced. It lacks a clear verb-resource pairing, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools.
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. There is no mention of scenarios or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to supplement the description, and the description itself does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as return format, error handling, side effects, or limitations. The agent is left without information about what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is overly terse and omits critical information about parameters and expected behavior. While brevity is positive, the lack of necessary detail reduces its effectiveness.
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 far from complete. It does not explain what inputs to provide (especially given the mismatched schema), what output to expect, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The complexity of the schema with irrelevant parameter descriptions makes this incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The input schema includes four parameters with descriptions that are clearly mismatched (e.g., 'json' described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'timezone' described as 'IANA timezone name'). These descriptions do not relate to splitting a hostname into labels, and the tool description does not clarify the expected purpose of any parameter. The parameter semantics are confusing and misleading.
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 clear action: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also clarifies that it does not involve WHOIS or ownership data, which helps distinguish it from potential domain-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url, but the core purpose is specific enough.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The single-sentence description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits—no side effects, data handling, safety implications, or result formats. The tool's behavior is completely opaque.
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 short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It lacks necessary structure (e.g., action verb, expected output, parameter roles) and does not meaningfully describe the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's four heterogeneous parameters and the existence of several timezone-related sibling tools, this sparse description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs are valid, what the tool returns, or how it differs from nearby alternatives.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are disconnected from the stated purpose of 'IANA timezone names'. The schema descriptions are generic and do not clarify how, for example, a URL or JSON text relates to retrieving or validating timezone names. No parameter is explained in the tool description itself.
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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is circular and vague—it restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does (e.g., list, validate, convert, or format timezone names). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'timezone', 'tz-america-denver', or 'utc-time', which also relate to timezones.
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. The description lacks any conditions, use cases, or examples, leaving the agent to guess which of the many timezone-related sibling tools is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that the tool does not return the full robots.txt content, that it only operates on public URLs, or that the provided parameters may not actually affect the fetch. The mismatch between the description and the generic parameter names makes the tool's actual behavior opaque and potentially misleading.
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, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It clearly and efficiently communicates the core action and result.
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 lacks essential context about how the tool determines which robots.txt to fetch, what constitutes a 'group', or how the provided parameters interact with the fetch. Given the generic and misleading parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
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 schema includes parameters (url, host, json, zone) that are irrelevant to the described functionality of fetching a robots.txt and returning group counts. The description provides no mapping between these parameters and the tool's purpose, and the schema descriptions are generic placeholders unrelated to robots.txt.
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 a specific action ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('public robots.txt'), and a specific output ('return group counts only'). It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 any alternative. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the behavior of dropping query and fragment, but lacks detail on error handling, return format, or side effects. The schema mismatch further obscures the actual behavior.
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, clear sentence without unnecessary words. However, the schema structure is cluttered with unrelated parameters, which detracts from overall conciseness.
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 is incomplete because the schema does not match the description. An agent would not know which parameters to provide or how they relate to the stated functionality, making it difficult to invoke 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?
The parameter descriptions are misleading. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', neither of which relates to URL normalization. The description does not explain how these parameters should be used.
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 tool's purpose (return origin, host, path, drop query/fragment), but the schema parameters (host, json, zone) are unrelated to this purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.
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 the sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would warrant its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a catalog, it's implied to be read-only, but the description doesn't explicitly state behavior, output format, or side effects. No annotations are present to supplement this, leaving the agent to infer safety.
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 concise (one short sentence) and well-structured, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a middle score for being short without being 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 description is grossly incomplete given the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain what the catalog contains, how to query it, what the output looks like, or how the supplied parameters are used. An agent would have no idea how to invoke this 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?
The input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to the described purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The schema descriptions only explain the parameters' individual meanings, not how they relate to the tool, and the mismatch renders the schema misleading.
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 resource (common HTTP status codes) but lacks a clear verb or usage context. It's ambiguous whether this is a lookup, a reference list, or something else, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings beyond the subject matter.
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. The description is a single phrase with no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationship to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavior beyond the time lookup, such as output format, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to clarify how the tool behaves, especially given the presence of irrelevant parameters.
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, concise sentence that directly communicates the core purpose.
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 lacks essential context such as output format, parameter usage, and differentiation from sibling tools. It does not complete the picture needed for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 description only explains the 'zone' parameter (IANA timezone), but the schema includes 'url', 'host', and 'json' with unrelated descriptions. The description fails to clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
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 tool returns the current time for a given IANA timezone. It implies a general capability beyond specific timezone tools, distinguishing it from siblings like tz-america-denver or utc-time.
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 such as tz-america-denver or utc-time. It does not mention any conditions or preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current local time in America/Denver.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description reveals only that it returns current local time; it does not disclose whether url, host, and json parameters are ignored, how zone is used, or any side effects.
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 concise sentence and is easy to parse, but it omits necessary context about parameters.
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 is incomplete as documented: it does not explain why unrelated parameters are present, whether they are required or ignored, or what output format to expect.
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 has descriptions for all four parameters, three of them (url, host, json) are unrelated to a timezone tool and appear to be copy-pasted from other tools; only zone is relevant, and the description adds no clarification about the others.
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?
Description clearly identifies a specific resource (America/Denver) and action (current local time), which distinguishes it from generic timezone tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a time lookup rather than a timezone converter, but enough.
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 on when to choose this tool over siblings like timezone or utc-time, and no instructions about how to use the optional parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only the minimal phrase 'Current UTC timestamp,' the description fails to disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, parameter handling, or output structure. It does not clarify that the listed parameters appear unrelated to the tool's purpose.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It conveys the basic purpose in one short sentence, yet lacks necessary context.
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?
For a tool that likely accepts no meaningful parameters and returns a timestamp, the description omits output format, whether parameters are ignored, and any edge cases. The presence of unrelated parameters creates confusion that is not resolved.
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 schema includes four parameters with descriptions unrelated to UTC time (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'). These descriptions are misleading and do not match the tool's apparent function, offering no meaningful semantic value.
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 tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like timezone and tz-america-denver, though it does not elaborate on the exact output format.
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 such as timezone or tz-america-denver. The description does not explain whether the input parameters should be ignored or are actually used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that 'the body is discarded,' which provides some transparency about side effects. However, there are no annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) to clarify whether the tool is read-only or mutates state. The mismatch in parameter descriptions (url, host, zone) further obscures the actual behavior and what constitutes a valid input.
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 (one sentence), but the tool definition as a whole is not concise due to the inclusion of several irrelevant parameters with verbose, unrelated descriptions. These extra fields clutter the definition and detract from the core message, making it harder for an agent to quickly understand the tool.
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 description lacks essential context: there is no output schema, and the expected return value is not mentioned. The presence of irrelevant parameters also creates a gap in understanding what inputs are actually required. The description mentions 'body' but does not clarify how that maps to the 'json' parameter, leaving the invocation contract ambiguous.
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 schema includes four parameters, but only 'json' has a description relevant to the tool's purpose ('JSON text to validate'). The other three parameters (url, host, zone) have descriptions copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and are completely unrelated. This is actively misleading and could cause an agent to pass unnecessary or invalid arguments. The description mentions 'body' but no parameter named 'body' exists, adding further confusion.
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 tool's purpose: to check whether a body is valid JSON. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like citation or timezone. However, the parameter definitions introduce confusion by including unrelated fields (url, host, zone) which detracts from an otherwise clear purpose.
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, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. A tool like this, which validates JSON, could benefit from note that it's for checking syntax only or when a body is present, but no such context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezonetz-america-denverutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Current local time in America/Los_Angeles.
Current local time in America/New_York.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but timezone, tz-america-denver, and utc-time overlap in providing time information, which could cause confusion. The URL-related tools (citation, domain-shape, normalize-url) are clearly differentiated.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, which is consistent. However, the mix of noun-style (citation, timezone) and verb-noun style (normalize-url, validate-json) names is slightly inconsistent but still readable and predictable.
The 11 tools cover a focused set of utilities (URL, time, HTTP status, JSON validation) without being excessive. The count is well-suited for the server's apparent purpose.
The tool set covers common URL, time, and validation needs. Minor gaps like a dedicated tool to get current date or to validate URLs exist, but the existing tools handle these indirectly and the surface feels reasonably complete.