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?
The description notes that the body is 'discarded', but provides no information about return values, error handling, side effects, or security implications. Without annotations, key behavioral aspects are left unspecified.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits necessary context about the extra parameters, making it structurally adequate yet incomplete in content.
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 four parameters, the description fails to explain how three of them relate to the stated purpose. The tool is not fully comprehensible without additional external knowledge, so it is incomplete for an agent.
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?
Only the 'json' parameter is meaningfully described in relation to validation. The descriptions for 'url', 'host', and 'zone' are mismatched and irrelevant to JSON validation, actively misleading the agent about their purpose.
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 the primary action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') but leaves the purpose of the other parameters (url, host, zone) unclear, creating ambiguity about the tool's full scope.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would make it the appropriate choice.
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.