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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only group counts are returned, but does not mention network behavior, error handling, redirects, access restrictions, or what happens when robots.txt is absent or unreadable.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because the extreme brevity leaves important invocation details unstated.
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?
With four parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It does not clarify which parameters matter for fetch a robots.txt, what 'group counts' means in practice, or what failure modes the agent should expect.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to robots.txt: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json as 'JSON text to validate', and zone as 'IANA timezone name'. The tool description does not explain which parameters apply or how they map to fetching a robots.txt, leaving the agent unable to choose between url and 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and clearly states the output scope ('return group counts only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone, which target different resources and operations.
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 provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusion conditions or prerequisites. The description implies the tool is for robots.txt inspection, but it never states when to prefer it over related tools such as domain-shape or compatibility.
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 distinct, but several overlap around URLs and time: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time overlap in purpose. The compatibility tool is especially vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names are mostly lowercase and hyphenated, but the set mixes noun-style names like citation, timezone, and status-catalog with verb-style names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count on its own, but the set feels scattershot relative to the server name 'ISO country US,' which implies a focused country-data service. Only one tool actually relates to the country domain, while the rest span unrelated web, URL, time, and JSON utilities.
As a collection of lightweight, privacy-oriented utilities, the surface is reasonably broad. However, the country-data aspect is severely thin with only cc-us, and there are notable gaps like DNS or HTTP header inspection if this is meant to be a general web-utility server.