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, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal an external read ('Fetch') and a restricted output ('group counts only'), but it leaves unspecified behavior around missing or inaccessible robots.txt files, redirects, and what exactly constitutes a group count.
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?
One short sentence with no filler; the core resource and output constraint are front-loaded. 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?
For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. Missing parameter mapping, expected response format, and edge-case behavior make the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
Even though all four parameters have schema descriptions, those descriptions reference normalization, citation, JSON validation, and timezones, which do not clearly map to 'robots.txt'. The tool description does not say which parameter identifies the target site, so an agent cannot confidently populate 'url' vs 'host'.
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?
States a clear action ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a public robots.txt'), and the exact output ('return group counts only'). This is unambiguous and sufficiently distinguishes the tool from the sibling list, none of which concern robots.txt.
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 intended use is implied by the description: use it when you need group counts from a public robots.txt. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternatives named, and no context such as prerequisites or limitations.
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.
Tools cluster into URL/HTTP and time-related groups, but within each cluster the purposes are mostly distinguishable. citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all touch hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and weekday-utc all return current time data, so an agent could briefly hesitate when selecting among them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern. Some tools use verb-object naming like inspect-robots and normalize-url, while others are plain nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog, making the set feel inconsistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and does not feel bloated. However, the selection spans many unrelated concerns—URL parsing, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, HTTP status—so the set feels broader than a single focused purpose.
For a privacy-focused URL/HTTP utility set, there are notable gaps such as no redirect or header inspection, and for time utilities there is no timezone conversion tool. The surface covers basic atomic operations but lacks the cohesive lifecycle or workflow coverage that would make it feel complete.