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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'The body is discarded,' which is a side-effect note, but this exact information already appears in the schema description for the 'json' parameter ('discarded after the check'). The description adds no new behavioral insight (e.g., return value, error handling, or side effects beyond discarding). Thus, it merely repeats structured data without enriching agent understanding.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 an agent. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, success/failure, or error), which is critical since there is no output schema. It also does not clarify the purpose of the other three parameters (url, host, zone) or whether they are ignored, leading to confusion about how the tool should be invoked. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 description coverage is 100%—every parameter (url, host, json, zone) has a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only refers to 'a body' which maps to the 'json' parameter but without clarifying the roles of the other three parameters. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description neither improves nor detracts from it.
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 function: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('body' as JSON). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with citations, domains, timezones, etc., leaving no ambiguity about what this 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, the description does not provide context like 'Use when you need to verify JSON format before processing' or mention any prerequisites. It neither states exclusions nor names alternative tools. The only usage hint is implicit via the purpose, which is not enough for a robust selection.
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.
Timezone, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai tools overlap: timezone can replicate the other two by passing a zone name, and citation/normalize-url both return host/scheme information. The compatibility tool is also vague about what it classifies, adding more boundary ambiguity.
Names are all lowercase and hyphenated, but they mix bare nouns like citation and timezone with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hardcoded tz-asia-shanghai also breaks the otherwise readable pattern.
Eleven tools is not extreme as a raw count, but for a server named Asia/Shanghai clock only four tools are time-related. The remaining URL, HTTP, and JSON helpers make the surface feel bloated and misaligned with the stated purpose.
The time domain covers basic zone lookups, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai, but lacks offset/DST details or conversion. The unrelated web/json tools create a second half-baked domain with no clear coverage, so the overall set does not feel complete for any single purpose.