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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that only group counts are returned (useful) but does not disclose whether the fetch respects timeouts, handles errors, follows redirects, or caches results. For a network-fetching tool, the lack of these behavioral details is a notable 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, brief sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action and result. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could reasonably add one more sentence about usage or behavior without becoming verbose.
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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it. It does not explain the role of parameters like 'json' or 'zone' in relation to robots.txt, nor the exact structure of 'group counts'. This incompleteness could lead to misuse.
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 a clear hint about the primary parameter (url for fetching) and the output scope, but it does not clarify which parameters are actually used for the robots.txt fetch versus irrelevant ones (e.g., zone appears unrelated). This leaves room for guesswork.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('robots.txt') and notes the output is 'group counts only', which gives a clear sense of the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'citation' (which may also fetch URLs), leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the right one.
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 a usage context ('public robots.txt') but offers no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). An agent cannot infer when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools or when it would be inappropriate.
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 have clearly different outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname shapes, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all cover time. A couple of vague names like compatibility and citation could also cause initial misselection.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which gives a visual consistency, but they mix verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and timezone. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to be considered strongly consistent.
11 tools is within a reasonable range and none feels redundant, but the collection spans several unrelated concerns such as URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, and robots.txt. It is slightly broad, though not bloated.
The set covers common lookups like URL normalization, status codes, time, and JSON validation, but there is no coherent domain that ties these together. Obvious adjacent operations such as redirect checking, response header inspection, or rate-limit-specific details are missing, leaving an agent with possible dead ends.