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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is a meaningful side-effect note. However, it repeats what the json parameter description already says ('discarded after the check') and does not disclose what the tool returns on success or failure, error behavior, or any operational limits.
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 the core purpose in the first and the key behavioral note in the second. Every word earns its place and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple validation tool this is mostly adequate, but the lack of an output schema means the description should indicate what an agent can expect after validation (e.g., a boolean, error message, or status). The description also leaves the unrelated parameters unexplained, which could confuse an agent selecting parameters. More context about the validation scope (syntax-only?) would complete the picture.
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 has 100% description coverage for its four parameters, but the description only adds a vague mapping of 'body' to the json parameter. It does not clarify why url, host, and zone exist, nor which parameters are relevant for validation. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters, but the description should have reconciled the unrelated parameters with the stated tool purpose.
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 identifies the verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' The tool name aligns with the purpose, and the sentence is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like normalize-url or timezone. The no-waste wording leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or edge cases. The description tells what it validates but not when the agent should select it. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and the existence of related 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.
Most tools target distinct resources like URLs, hostnames, robots.txt, timezones, and JSON. The main overlap is between citation and normalize-url, which both expose host information from a URL, and between timezone and utc-time when the requested zone is UTC. Descriptions are generally clear enough to disambiguate.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, and each tool has a distinct small purpose. A few could be consolidated, such as utc-time with timezone or citation with normalize-url, but the count is not excessive.
The server covers basic URL inspection, time retrieval, JSON validation, and word counting, but notable gaps exist such as URL validation, timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, and JSON formatting. The surface is more of a grab bag than a coherent full-featured utility domain.