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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that the body is discarded, which signals a non-persisting side effect. However, it fails to describe the validation outcome, such as whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or emits a status code, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format.
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 no wasted words. The core action and the key side effect are front-loaded, and the description is appropriately sized for its narrow purpose.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral and return information. It omits how the body is supplied, what indicates a valid versus invalid result, and what to do with the three unrelated schema parameters. This is insufficient 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%, which normally justifies a baseline of 3, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema. More importantly, the schema includes url, host, and zone parameters that are irrelevant to validating JSON, and the description never clarifies that 'body' corresponds to the 'json' parameter or why the other parameters exist.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools. However, it's slightly ambiguous because the input schema exposes a 'json' string parameter rather than a raw request body, and the description never explicitly connects the two.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites, examples, or exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion risk is low, but the description leaves all usage decisions to the agent without any contextual direction.
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.
Citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all process URLs or hostnames with partially overlapping outputs, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones cluster into a separate time-related group. Compatibility is especially vague and adds confusion.
All tool names share a lowercase-hyphen style, but they mix noun phrases like citation and status-catalog with imperative verbs like normalize-url and validate-json. The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.
Ten tools is a reasonable, navigable number for a utility server. However, several tools such as timezone, iana-zones, and validate-json feel tangential to the apparent HTTP Status focus, so the count is slightly over-inclusive.
The tool set mixes HTTP/URL, time, and JSON validation concerns without forming a coherent workflow or domain coverage. Significant gaps remain, such as HTTP header inspection, timezone conversion, and broader URL or JSON operations.