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 adds one useful behavioral detail: 'The body is discarded,' which signals a lack of persistence. But with no annotations and no mention of what happens on success/failure, whether a URL is fetched, or what the return value looks like, the behavioral burden is not fully met.
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 short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core operation and the additional sentence about discarding earns its place as a side-effect note, even if it largely repeats the schema.
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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explicitly state which parameter provides the body, what the result of validation looks like, and whether `url`, `host`, and `zone` are irrelevant to this operation.
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 schema already documents each parameter, including the `json` parameter's meaning and its discard behavior. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond calling it a 'body,' which is vaguer than the schema's own wording.
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 action and target: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a clear verb+resource pairing and the tool is naturally distinguished from its URL-related siblings. However, 'body' is slightly ambiguous because the schema includes a `json` parameter but the description never names it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is for validating JSON syntax, with no help about when it should or should not be chosen over 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 are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both return URL-derived fields, and timezone/utc-time overlap in purpose. compatibility is vague enough that an agent could struggle to know when to use it over the URL inspection tools.
Names mix bare nouns (citation, timezone, compatibility) with verb-noun forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the grammatical pattern is not, making the set feel ad hoc.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but the set includes unrelated areas like timezones, HTTP status codes, and JSON validation under a URL Normalize server. Several tools do not clearly earn their place relative to the stated purpose.
The only tool directly addressing the server's core purpose is normalize-url, and it only returns origin, host, and path. Missing URL comparison, query/fragment handling, or rewrite capabilities leaves the main workflow incomplete, while unrelated tools do not fill those gaps.