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 provides only a minimal behavioral statement (fetch and return counts). No details about error handling, rate limits, or side effects. More critically, the parameter descriptions for 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to robots.txt, suggesting the tool behavior may not match the stated purpose or may be misleading.
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 brief and straightforward, using a single sentence. However, the mismatch between the description and the parameter list slightly reduces structural coherence, though the text itself is concise.
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 lacks sufficient context due to the mismatched parameters and absent output schema. The description does not explain how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt, nor does it specify the return format of 'group counts'. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 schema includes four parameters with descriptions, but they are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. 'url' and 'host' are plausible, but 'json' (validate JSON) and 'zone' (IANA timezone) are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt. This suggests a schema mismatch or copy-paste error, making parameter semantics unreliable.
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) and resource (public robots.txt) and the output (group counts). It is distinguishable from sibling tools, though 'group counts' is somewhat vague. No explicit comparison to siblings, but purpose is 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. Sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json exist but are not referenced, and no conditions or contexts are provided.
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 are clearly separate: URL parsing, robots inspection, time lookups, and JSON validation occupy distinct niches. The main confusions are citation vs normaliz-url, both URL inspection, and compatibility, whose classification purpose is vague.
All names use kebab-case, but the parts of speech vary: normalize-url and validate-json are verb-object, while citation, timezone, and iana-zones are noun phrases. This makes the naming readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 11 tools, the server is within the well-scoped range and no tool feels redundant. The scope is broad—URLs, HTTP, time, JSON—but the count itself is not excessive.
As a loose utility server, it offers a few operations per category rather than full coverage: time has current/lookup but no conversion, URL has inspection but no content fetch by design. Missing obvious helpers like URL comparison or timezone conversion, though the server likely aims to be minimal.