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 full burden. It discloses the fetch behavior and that only counts are returned, but it omits the side-effect profile, error behavior for unreachable/non-public hosts, and implies a scope constraint (public') without defining it. The schema's json parameter ('discarded after the check') also hints at transient behavior that conflicts with the robots.txt framing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place – verb, object, scope, and output constraint are all present.
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?
High operational complexity: 4 parameters, none required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain how an agent selects the target site, what the return value looks like, why json/zone exist, or what happens when a robots.txt is missing. An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly.
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% giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds no mapping of parameters to the fetch operation – it does not say whether url or host is the site to fetch. Worse, the schema's own descriptions (normalize or cite, validate JSON, IANA timezone) appear mismatched with the tool's stated purpose, actively confusing which parameters an agent should populate.
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) and resource (public robots.txt) with a clear output constraint (group counts only), which distinguishes it from the citation-themed siblings. However, 'group counts' is undefined, and the schema parameters (json, zone) suggest a different domain, which muddies the clarity even though the description itself is specific.
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 given on when to use this tool vs. the sibling citation tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'group counts only' implies a scope limitation, but it is not framed as usage guidance, so an agent has to infer applicability.
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.
Multiple tools overlap in purpose: utc-time, timezone, and tz-europe-paris all return current time, while citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs. compatibility is especially vague and could be confused with several other request-classification tools.
Names are consistently hyphenated, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun-only (citation, timezone, status-catalog). The odd tz-europe-paris name further weakens predictability.
Eleven tools is not an inherently excessive count, but the set is poorly scoped for a server named 'Europe/Paris clock'. Most tools relate to URLs, HTTP, robots, or JSON rather than time, making the server feel padded with unrelated utilities.
As a clock server, there is basic coverage for timezones and UTC, but no time conversion or formatting options. As a URL/HTTP utility server, it lacks content retrieval and other standard operations, so the mixed scope leaves significant gaps for any coherent interpretation.