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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: the body is discarded after the check. However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding the input.
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 no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the side-effect detail is useful and compact. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the presence of 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the purpose of the url/host/zone parameters, or how the 'body' relates to the schema. More context is needed for a 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 a baseline of 3 is warranted, but the parameter descriptions are largely irrelevant to JSON validation (url, host, zone) and the description's 'body' does not explicitly match the json parameter. The description adds little meaning to resolve the mismatch or clarify which parameters are actually needed.
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 a specific action and resource: checking whether a body is valid JSON. However, it does not differentiate this tool from any sibling tools by naming alternatives or exclusions, so the agent cannot be certain when this is the right choice over a similar validation tool.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or filtering context. The phrase 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' implies a validation scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.