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 must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the body is discarded, which is a meaningful behavioral side effect. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid JSON, whether an error is returned, or whether any data is persisted. The single side effect is disclosed, but the outcome behavior is incomplete.
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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral side effect is stated immediately. 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 tool's simplicity (a validation check with no output schema and no required parameters), the description covers the main intent. However, the purpose of the extraneous parameters (url, host, zone) is unclear, and the result of validation (what counts as valid, what happens on failure) is left unspecified. The description is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the key behavioral meaning for the 'json' parameter: it is validated and then discarded. This goes beyond the schema's 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' by reinforcing the disposal behavior, but it doesn't clarify how other parameters (url, host, zone) interact with the validation.
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-check-and-resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON', and adds a clear side effect: 'The body is discarded.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-csv or normalize-url, so an agent can understand the core operation immediately.
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 implies the tool is for validating JSON bodies and discarding them, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance about constraints such as size limits, required headers, or cases where validation should be avoided.
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.