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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral detail: 'The body is discarded', which tells the agent the input is not stored or returned. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean or status), whether any side effects occur, or why the other schema fields (url, host, zone) exist.
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?
Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The core operation is stated first, and the key behavioral caveat (discard) is placed immediately after. Excellent front-loading and economy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'body' maps to in the schema, what the return value is, or how the url/host/zone parameters relate to validation. An agent would struggle to know exactly how to invoke this correctly, despite the clear core purpose.
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 all four parameters. The description adds no direct parameter-level meaning beyond the discard behavior, which is already stated in the schema's 'json' parameter description. This stays at the baseline 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: check whether a body is valid JSON. This clearly differentiates the tool from unrelated siblings like normalize-url or timezone, though it doesn't name the sibling it is not. The term 'body' is slightly ambiguous because the schema parameter is named 'json', which prevents a perfect 5.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different sibling would be more appropriate. The schema and sibling list provide no help either, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
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.
A few clusters overlap—citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time—but the descriptions generally make the intended output clear. The vague 'compatibility' tool adds some ambiguity, but no tools are truly indistinguishable.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), while others are noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog) or single nouns (citation, timezone). This is readable but not predictably consistent.
11 tools is within the reasonable 3-15 range and each tool has a distinct purpose. However, the set spans URL inspection, time, UUID, JSON, and HTTP status, so it feels slightly broader than the server name implies.
For a shape and inspection utility server, the main categories are covered: URL normalization, robots.txt inspection, HTTP status, timezone lookup, current time, JSON validation, and UUID shape checking. Minor gaps exist like redirect chains or JSON schema validation, but the core surface is not severely incomplete.