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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output granularity. It fails to explain practical behaviors such as HTTP error handling, redirects, rate limits, or why the input schema includes unrelated fields (json, zone). The mismatch between the description and schema parameters undermines transparency.
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 sentence) and front-loads the core action, which is positive. However, given that the schema has four parameters with no required fields, the single sentence omits crucial context about parameter interplay, making the tool under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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 with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, how to construct a valid request, or why the seemingly irrelevant parameters exist. An agent would be left uncertain about how to properly 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?
Although schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), those descriptions are confusingly unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' for a robots.txt fetcher). The description adds no clarifying context about how 'url' or 'host' are used, and it does nothing to reconcile the irrelevant parameters, so it fails to add value beyond the schema's already misleading entries.
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 the output ('return group counts only'), making the tool's primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the unique resource (robots.txt) is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.
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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given task.
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 functions, but current-time tools overlap: timezone accepts any IANA zone while tz-asia-hong-kong and utc-time are hardcoded special cases, creating redundancy. citation and compatibility also have vague descriptions that could be confused.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated multi-word phrases (domain-shape, inspect-robots, normalize-url, tz-asia-hong-kong). There is no consistent verb_noun or naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'Asia/Hong_Kong clock' many tools (URL, HTTP, JSON, robots.txt) are unrelated to timekeeping. The set feels like a bundled grab-bag rather than a focused clock utility.
For a clock/time server, the core operations exist (list zones, current time in a zone, UTC), but there is no timezone conversion, formatting, or date arithmetic. Meanwhile the unrelated web/JSON utilities do not compensate for the missing time-focused functionality.