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 statement 'The body is discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure, indicating the input is not stored or persisted. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not mention what happens with invalid JSON (e.g., error vs. false return), return format, or any side effects beyond discarding the body.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the important behavioral note follows. 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?
While the tool appears simple, there is no output schema and zero annotations, yet the description omits the result/return behavior, error handling, and does not clarify which parameters are relevant to this tool. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) without explanation leaves an agent with significant ambiguity. Given the low complexity, more completeness would be expected.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the term 'body' and reinforces the discarding behavior, aligning with the 'json' parameter's schema description. However, it does not explain the role of the other schema parameters (url, host, zone), which appear unrelated to JSON validation and could confuse an agent.
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 a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools or mention how it differs from any other validation-related tool.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need to validate JSON), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives might be better. There are no usage exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
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.