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 a read-only network fetch of a public resource and that the return is restricted to counts. However, it does not state error behavior for missing robots.txt (404 vs empty), redirect handling, rate limits, or the exact structure of 'group counts.'
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 nine-word sentence that leads with the verb and states the core behavior and output scope. Zero filler; 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?
The tool has 4 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers high-level behavior. Missing are which parameter is the fetch source, the return shape of 'group counts,' and edge-case behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.
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 baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions appear mismatched with the stated purpose: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' and 'IANA timezone name' do not obviously relate to fetching robots.txt. The description adds no mapping between url/host and the fetch target, leaving the agent unable to determine how to invoke the tool.
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 and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' The 'only' constraint scopes the output and distinguishes it from tools that return full robots.txt content. Minor gap: 'group counts' is undefined jargon, and there is no explicit differentiation from the sibling 'citation,' though the difference is self-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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only implicit signal is 'group counts only,' which hints it is for lightweight checks rather than full-content retrieval, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or reference to sibling 'citation.'
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 fall into overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both process URLs, while timezone, utc-time, and unix-now all report current time. The descriptions clarify the exact output of each, but an agent could still struggle to pick between them without careful reading.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, giving a consistent visual style. However, the pattern mixes noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, unix-now) with verb-noun imperatives (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), so there is no single predictable naming convention.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and each utility has a narrow function. The count itself is reasonable, although the server name suggests a time-focused purpose while many tools are actually web/URL utilities.
The set covers common stateless operations: current time, timezone lookups, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. Notable gaps include epoch-to-human timestamp conversion and a way to fetch or inspect HTTP response details beyond status, which would be expected in a general utility server.