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?
It discloses the main behavior (fetching a public robots.txt and returning counts), but with no annotations it does not address possible failures, redirects, blocking, or the fact that the URL parameter description appears mismatched with the actual 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; all words contribute to conveying the operation.
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 does not explain how to specify the robots.txt target (which parameter is authoritative), what the returned group counts look like, or how errors are handled, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?
Although every parameter has a description, the descriptions are mismatched: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a robots.txt URL, and json/zone are unrelated to robots.txt inspection, making the parameters 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 clearly states the action (fetch), target (public robots.txt), and output (group counts only), distinguishing it from sibling tools that normalize URLs or validate JSON. It lacks a title but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like normalize-url, domain-shape, or compatibility, nor does it mention prerequisites such as supplying a robots.txt URL.
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.
Tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-asia-singapore' overlap in purpose, though the latter is location-specific. Similarly, 'normalize-url' and 'inspect-robots' both relate to URLs but serve different functions. Overall, most tools are distinguishable but a few could cause selection ambiguity.
Names are highly inconsistent: some are verb phrases (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'), some are nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'iana-zones'), and there's no unified pattern. Hyphenation is used but not systematically, and the mix of imperative and descriptive naming makes the set feel arbitrary.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a multi-purpose utility server. However, the set feels padded with niche tools like 'tz-asia-singapore' while lacking broader coverage, making the count slightly high for the apparent scope.
The tools cover disparate domains (URLs, timezones, JSON, HTTP status) without forming a coherent service. For a clock/timezone server, there are redundant tools but no common operations like list all timezones or convert between zones. For a URL utility, missing fetch or parse variants. The domain is unclear, leading to significant gaps.