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?
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.
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.