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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool fetches (a network operation) and returns only group counts, which indicates it discards other content. However, it omits details like failure modes (e.g., 404, non-existent robots.txt), whether it performs a network request to an external domain, or any rate-limit or safety considerations. This is a partial disclosure.
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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It states the core action and the output limitation immediately. While it is arguably under-specified, it is not verbose or padded. It earns a 4 for efficiency and focus.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to specify the target robots.txt, what 'group counts' means exactly, or what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric count per user-agent group). An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional clues. The description is incomplete for safe and effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (url, host, json, zone) already has a description. The tool description, however, does not clarify which parameter(s) are relevant for fetching robots.txt. It only says 'fetch a public robots.txt,' leaving the agent to guess whether to use url or host. This adds no value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's action: fetching a public robots.txt and returning group counts. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'robots.txt' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but its unique focus on group counts sets it apart. Slight ambiguity remains on which input parameter (url or host) supplies the target, but the core purpose is evident.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, citation, or domain-shape. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others. An agent would have no clue about context or trade-offs.
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 overlap heavily: timezone, tz-pacific-auckland, and utc-time all return current time, and URL/HTTP tools like citation, compatibility, normalize-url, and domain-shape have unclear boundaries. Agents would likely struggle to pick the right one.
Names are mostly lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-object forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-like labels (citation, compatibility, timezone) and an inconsistent specific alias (tz-pacific-auckland vs timezone).
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named as a Pacific/Auckland clock, at least seven tools are unrelated URL/HTTP utilities and several time tools are redundant, making the set feel padded and poorly scoped.
The time-related subset covers current time, UTC, and IANA zone names, so it is largely complete for a simple clock. However, the mixed URL/HTTP and validation tools have no clear unified domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete and hard to reason about.