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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to address these aspects.
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, concise sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to read.
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?
The description omits critical context such as what 'group counts' mean, how the URL or host parameters should be used, and any expectations about the output format. This leaves the description insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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?
The description adds no clarifying meaning to the parameters, and the schema descriptions are mismatched (e.g., json for validation, timezone name) relative to the tool's stated purpose of fetching robots.txt. This actively confuses rather than aids parameter understanding.
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 action (fetch), the resource (public robots.txt), and the output (group counts only). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, conditions, or limitations, leaving the agent without usage context.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, though time-related tools (timezone, tz-utc, utc-time) and URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) share overlapping domains. However, each tool's specific output and intent are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tools use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens naming convention (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, utc-time). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer function from name.
The server exposes 11 tools, which is a reasonable number for a general-purpose utility. Each tool serves a distinct function without being redundant or excessive, fitting well within the typical range.
The tools cover a broad set of utilities (time, URL parsing, HTTP status, JSON validation, robots.txt), but the server name suggests a clock focus. While time-related functionality is well represented, the additional URL and HTTP tools indicate a mixed-purpose design rather than a fully comprehensive single domain.