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, but it only says it fetches a public file and returns counts. It does not explain failure behavior, network assumptions, rate limits, or what 'group counts' means. It also conflicts implicitly with the schema by ignoring the json 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core scoping phrase 'group counts only' is placed at the end for emphasis.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do more. It does not explain how the parameters relate to fetching a robots.txt, which parameter should be supplied, or what shape the returned group counts take.
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 no parameter meaning and, in fact, ignores three of the four parameters, but the schema itself already documents each one.
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 ('public robots.txt') and further narrows the behavior with 'return group counts only.' It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like citation or validate-json, so it just misses the top score.
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 its siblings, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. An agent must infer that this is for robots.txt inspection rather than being told.
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 dissect URLs/hostnames, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status reporting. compatibility is too vague to disambiguate, so an agent could easily pick the wrong URL-analysis tool.
All names are lowercase and hyphen-separated, which is readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun while citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog are nouns. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'JSON Check' only validate-json is on-topic. The remaining nine are unrelated URL, HTTP, and time utilities, making the toolset feel like a grab bag rather than a scoped set.
As a JSON-checking server it is severely incomplete: only a boolean validity check is offered, with no schema validation, formatting, or JSON-path operations. As a general URL/HTTP utility it also lacks HTTP body access, redirect handling, and timezone conversion, so common workflows will hit dead ends.