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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It proactively discloses that the body is discarded after the check, which is genuinely useful for safety. However, it omits return behavior, error cases, and what 'valid' means in this context.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the discard side-effect is stated efficiently.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the definition is incomplete: no output schema, no return-value description, and a mismatched 4-parameter schema that is not explained. An agent gets no help understanding why url/host/zone appear or what the tool returns, leaving a significant gap between the description and the actual call surface.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema itself is inconsistent with the description: it includes url, host, and zone with unrelated semantics, while the description only references the body/json. The description fails to clarify that only the json parameter matters or how the other parameters should be handled, actively confusing parameter selection.
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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is clear and not a tautology. It doesn't explicitly name sibling distinctions, but the discard note helps separate validation from normalization/citation siblings.
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 are no explicit conditions, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.
The time tools overlap heavily: timezone can replicate utc-time and tz-america-los-angeles, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one. The URL/HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but compatibility is vague and domain-shape/normalize-url both operate on hostname structure.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated style, which is clean and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some names are verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) while others are bare nouns (citation, timezone, utc-time), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in absolute terms, but the set is divided between time-related tools and unrelated URL/HTTP inspection utilities. Under the 'clock' identity, the count feels inflated and the purpose is diluted.
For a clock service, the core time queries are covered, but there is no timezone conversion or exhaustive zone listing. If viewed as a network-inspection suite, some exclusions are intentional, yet compatibility is underspecified and the overall domain remains unclear.