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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that only group counts are returned, but it does not disclose network-fetch behavior, failure modes, external URL access implications, or how the unrelated-looking parameters (json, zone) affect behavior.
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 wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter guidance.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and misleading parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It fails to clarify the return value structure, the role of each optional parameter, and the tool's relationship to the sibling tools.
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%, the parameter descriptions appear mismatched with the tool's stated purpose: 'url' is described as 'normalize or cite', 'json' as 'validate', and 'zone' as 'timezone name'. The description adds no parameter mapping or clarification for using these parameters with robots.txt, leaving the agent confused about which parameters actually apply.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and the output ('group counts only'), making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it does not specify how the input parameters relate to that purpose, and the phrase 'group counts' is not elaborated.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, citation, or domain-shape. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Several tools operate on URLs and return overlapping metadata (citation vs normalize-url vs compatibility), and timezone overlaps with tz-australia-sydney. While descriptions add detail, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for host/status or local-time tasks.
Tool names mix single nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog), and verb_noun commands (inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, making the surface feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'Australia/Sydney clock' the majority of tools are unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON utilities. The set would be better split into a clock server and a web-metadata server.
The time-related surface is reasonably complete with UTC, named timezone, Sydney time, and a zone catalog, but notable gaps remain such as timezone conversion and offset information. The URL/HTTP tools cover several metadata operations but lack obvious related operations, so overall domain coverage is uneven.