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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read-only network fetch of a public resource and explicitly limits the output to group counts. However, it does not mention potential failures, rate limits, or how 'public' is determined, which are relevant for an external fetch.
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 zero filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the output limitation in a compact form, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description partially covers the return value by stating 'group counts only.' Still, the tool has four parameters with unclear relevance, no usage guidance, and no mention of behavioral edge cases, leaving the overall context incomplete for confident invocation.
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 description adds no parameter context and several schema descriptions appear unrelated to robots.txt inspection (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' and 'IANA timezone name'). An agent cannot tell from the description which parameters are relevant for fetching robots.txt or how they interact, creating a real semantic gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and it clarifies the output scope ('return group counts only'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'citation', so an agent must infer the distinction from the name and description alone.
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, and no exclusions or fallback conditions. An agent can only infer that it is for robots.txt inspection, leaving the decision to call it instead of 'citation' to interpretation.
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, tz-asia-tokyo, and utc-time all return current time with overlapping purposes, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The mix of time and URL tools under a clock server name further confuses selection.
Tool names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern mixes nouns (citation, timezone), verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url), and a special abbreviation (tz-asia-tokyo). The style is readable but not uniformly verb_noun.
11 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the server's apparent focus is unclear — half are time-related and half are URL/HTTP utilities. The count is not excessive, though the breadth feels unaligned with the server name.
The time domain covers current time, UTC, and timezone names, but lacks timezone conversion or date formatting. The URL utilities are a partial set with no page fetch, headers, or query handling, leaving notable gaps for a general web tool surface.