Meaning of HTTP 200.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it only offers one behavioral trait: 'Page content is not stored.' It does not disclose network effects, redirect/error handling, rate limits, or what happens to the json and zone inputs, which is a significant gap for a tool that appears to bundle multiple behaviors.
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 two short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, but its brevity leaves the json and zone behaviors unexplained, so it is efficient rather than complete.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description only promises host, scheme, and HTTP status while the schema lists four parameters including json and zone. The sibling tool names (normalize-url, validate-json, validate-timezone, check-robots, etc.) reveal that this is likely a multi-behavior tool, and the description fails to cover those paths or the different return shapes an agent would need.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, except that 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status' clarifies what 'normalize or cite' produces for the url parameter; json, host, and zone receive no additional semantic explanation.
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 clear action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') with a specific resource. However, the tool name 'citation' and the input schema's json and zone parameters suggest additional behaviors (JSON validation, timezone checks) that the description never mentions, so its purpose is only partially disclosed.
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, nor when to supply json vs url vs zone. The phrase 'normalize or cite' in the schema hints at intent, but the description itself provides no decision context for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds exactly one behavioral fact — 'No identifiers are retained' — which is useful privacy context, but it omits how inputs are processed, whether any state is kept, and what the classification output represents.
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 sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the privacy disclosure follows naturally. It is concise, though brevity is partly achieved by omitting substantive details.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description must explain how the inputs map to the output. It does not — an agent cannot determine which parameter(s) to populate or what classification result to 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, justifying the baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning: it never mentions url, host, json, or zone, nor how each affects the classification.
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 action (show a classification) but leaves 'classified' undefined — the tool name suggests compatibility assessment, yet the description never mentions compatibility or what classification categories exist. It is distinguishable from siblings only by implication, not enough for an agent to anticipate the result.
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 on when to invoke this tool over its siblings (citation, domain-shape), no exclusions, and no inter-tool routing. The privacy note ('No identifiers are retained') implies safe usage but does not establish a selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does NOT do (no WHOIS/ownership), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what it DOES return, how it handles invalid input, or what happens with the four parameters (especially 'json' and 'zone' which seem unrelated to hostname splitting). The description reveals a mismatch: a tool described as splitting hostnames accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters with no explanation of how 'json' and 'zone' fit the behavior. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap.
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 sentence, extremely brief, and front-loads the core action ('split a hostname'). It earns high marks for brevity, but the sentence omits any mention of the tool's parameters, which is a structural omission - not merely verbosity. Still, for what it includes, there is zero waste.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot know what the tool returns (label array? normalized string?), what input formats are valid, or how the 'json' and 'zone' parameters interact with the core action. The description gives the agent the 'what' but not the 'how' or the full 'why'. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 heterogeneous params), this is a clear completeness gap.
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?
While schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a schema description), those descriptions are minimal and don't explain how they relate to the tool's core behavior of splitting hostnames. The 'url' and 'host' parameters are plausible inputs, but 'json' and 'zone' have no stated connection to hostname splitting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, and actually raises confusion about how 'json' and 'zone' are used. For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description's failure to reconcile the parameters with the stated purpose drops it below baseline.
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 ('split'), a specific resource ('hostname'), and an explicit exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings that might do WHOIS lookups or domain ownership enrichment. The negative constraint is highly informative for an agent deciding between tools.
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 exclusion 'without WHOIS or ownership data' tells the agent when NOT to use this tool - namely when WHOIS/ownership info is needed - which is a clear usage boundary. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the negative constraint implies the routing decision. The context signals show requiredParams=0, so no prerequisites needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Meaning of HTTP 200.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an informational read-only behavior but never states what the tool returns, whether it performs validation, or how the four input parameters affect the outcome.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than useful brevity. The sentence adds no actionable information and does not earn its place as a functional description.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a four-word description that ignores all four parameters, the agent cannot determine what to invoke or what response to expect. This is severely incomplete for a tool with this much schema surface area.
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 each parameter is documented individually. However, the tool description adds nothing that connects url, host, json, or zone to HTTP 200, leaving the overall parameter semantics ambiguous.
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 'Meaning of HTTP 200.' is nearly a restatement of the tool name; it provides a topic label rather than an action statement. It does not say what the tool does, what it returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like status-catalog.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status-catalog, normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description gives no context, no exclusions, and no decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says the tool contains 'common' names; it does not state what happens when called, whether arguments are required or ignored, what the output looks like, or whether this is a read-only lookup. The schema even includes url, host, and json parameters that appear unrelated to timezone names, and the description does not address this mismatch.
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 short sentence with no waste, which earns points for conciseness. But it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative: it provides no structuring of behavior or parameter relationships, so the brevity works against clarity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a non-obvious input schema, an agent lacks enough context to safely call this tool. It is not clear which of the four optional parameters to supply, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'timezone' and 'utc-time'. The description is too terse to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely aligns with the 'zone' parameter and adds no meaning about how 'url', 'host', or 'json' might interact with the tool. This is a missed opportunity to clarify an otherwise confusing parameter set, but the schema itself does describe each field.
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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') and a purpose ('for clock calls'), but lacks an explicit action verb like 'lists', 'returns', or 'validates'. It reads more like a noun phrase than a tool behavior, so an agent cannot be sure whether calling this tool fetches names, checks a zone, or something else.
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?
'For clock calls' implies usage context—when you need IANA timezone names to pass to a clock tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling tool 'timezone' or any alternatives, and it does not mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that the tool fetches a public file and returns counts. It does not disclose network behavior, failure modes on unreachable hosts, rate limits, or side effects, and it silently hides the fact that the listed parameters do not map to robots.txt fetching.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it opens with the verb and resource and immediately states the result. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification of usage and parameters.
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 the only source of operational context, and it is inadequate. It does not explain the return shape of 'group counts', which parameters are relevant, or how this tool relates to its siblings, and the input schema actively conflicts with the described behavior.
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?
This is a severe mismatch. Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose: 'url' is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' is 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' is 'IANA timezone name'. The description adds no mapping to these parameters, so an agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 is specific: it names the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public robots.txt', and defines the outcome as 'return group counts only'. This clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools by name or alternative, so it just misses a 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like citation, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the action without any context about the intended use case, leaving an agent to guess when fetching robots.txt group counts is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—query and fragment are dropped—which tells the agent what not to expect in the result. However, it does not describe error handling or how the unrelated host, json, and zone parameters affect behavior, slightly lowering completeness.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the important behavioral note about dropped query/fragment appears immediately after, making the high-value information easy to parse.
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?
While the core URL behavior is stated, the description is incomplete given the tool's actual input schema. It does not explain why host, json, and zone are accepted, what role they play, or how they relate to the stated purpose. There is also no output schema and no annotation to fill in these gaps, leaving an agent with an ambiguous contract for a 4-parameter tool.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for url, and it ignores the host, json, and zone parameters entirely. Their schema descriptions are present, but the description adds no context connecting them to URL normalization.
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: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also clarifies a key scoping behavior—query and fragment are dropped—which makes the tool's function immediately distinct from generic URL utilities or validation siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as validate-json or timezone, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name and first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
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 reveals that the tool is a 'catalog' (likely read-only) but does not explain any behavior beyond that, such as whether it returns a list, filters by input, or has any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.
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 only one short clause, which is concise, but it sacrifices substance. For a tool with four unrelated parameters and no usage context, this is under-specification rather than efficient brevity; it could be clearer while still being short.
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 is simple in concept, but with no output schema, no annotations, and four mismatched parameters, the description should clarify how those parameters relate to the HTTP status catalog. It does not, leaving the agent with a vague reference and no guidance on how inputs are used or what result to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, each with a clear description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' uses a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource structure. It does not state what action the tool performs or what an agent can do with this catalog, making it distinct from siblings only by topic, not by function.
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 on when to use this tool versus the siblings (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, validate-json, etc.). The description implies a reference/consultation purpose but does not specify conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are none provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current time' which is a read operation, but does not state behavior like timezone lookup, formatting, or error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only minimal behavioral context beyond what an agent might infer.
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 one short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It does not waste words, but it also lacks any structural guidance (e.g., examples) that could help an agent. Efficient but minimal.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too skeletal. It doesn't clarify which parameter is mandatory (zone) despite being optional in the schema, nor does it explain how the time is returned or how errors are handled. The description is complete only for a trivial case, which is unlikely 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, host, json, zone). The description adds nothing about which parameter to use or how to format the zone name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description gives no extra semantics.
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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' states a clear verb+resource, so it tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tools like 'citation' or 'normalize-url' without opening their schemas. Given the simplicity, this is a basic description but not a tautology.
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 description implies usage: to get the current time for a specific IANA timezone. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that the 'zone' parameter is the relevant one. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the timestamp is current and UTC. It does not disclose the output format, precision, or whether input parameters affect the result.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but it contains no fluff.
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 leaves important gaps: response format, parameter relevance, and relationship to sibling tools. An agent can guess what it does but cannot fully trust the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning and, notably, the parameters seem unrelated to UTC time, but the baseline of 3 applies for high coverage.
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 phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states what the tool returns: the current time in UTC. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly differentiate from siblings like timezone, but the resource and output are unambiguous.
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 instead of timezone, iana-zones, or the other sibling tools. There is also no indication that the four optional schema parameters are irrelevant or ignored.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that 'the body is discarded,' which is a meaningful side-effect-free behavior. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error behavior for invalid JSON, response format, or any side effects related to the url, host, and zone parameters.
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, both informative. The core purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note about discarding the body is a valuable addition without any filler.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do substantial work, but it only covers the JSON-checking role. It leaves the function of url, host, and zone unexplained, gives no return-value information, and provides no guidance on validation failure behavior.
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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and notably it doesn't clarify why url, host, and zone parameters exist alongside the json parameter, which could confuse an agent selecting parameters. It does at least map 'body' to the json field implicitly.
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'—which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and is distinct from the sibling tools normalize-url and cite. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus normalize-url or cite, and no context such as prerequisites, typical call scenarios, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapehttp-200iana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap: citation and normalize-url both decompose URLs into host/scheme, http-200 is a single-code subset of status-catalog, and timezone/utc-time both give current time. compatibility is too vague to position relative to the others, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the style mixes nouns (status-catalog, timezone), verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and code-like labels (http-200). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the naming remains readable.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a web/HTTP utility server. However, a few tools could be consolidated (http-200 into status-catalog, utc-time into timezone), so the count is slightly higher than needed but not excessive.
The set covers common status-code lookup, URL parsing, robots.txt inspection, JSON validation, and time retrieval, but it lacks natural complements such as timezone conversion, header inspection, or URL construction. These gaps are workable, but they make the surface feel incomplete for a general HTTP/URL utility tool.