16 random hex chars
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The privacy note 'Page content is not stored' adds value, and fetching a URL to return HTTP status implies network behavior. However, the description hides that the tool also validates JSON and handles timezones, and it does not disclose side effects, redirect handling, timeouts, or whether the URL itself is logged.
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 zero filler, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a relevant privacy disclosure. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite the 100% schema coverage for parameter names, the description fails to explain how the four parameters relate — the tool appears to combine URL citation, JSON validation, and timezone handling, but the description only covers the URL case. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent lacks return-format details, valid parameter combinations, and behavior for multi-parameter calls.
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 even without parameter details in the tool description. The description adds no semantic value beyond naming 'a URL', leaving json, host, and zone entirely to the schema. It neither compensates for nor detracts from the schema's already-sufficient parameter documentation.
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 ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') with a clear resource and output fields, so an agent knows the primary function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, which likely overlap in URL and JSON handling. It is clear but lacks sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json. No contexts, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned, and the presence of json and zone parameters in the schema suggests additional use cases the description never surfaces. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.
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 one useful privacy-related trait, 'No identifiers are retained,' but it does not say what processing occurs, whether requests are sent externally, what side effects exist, or what happens to the inputs.
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 and free of filler, and the privacy statement earns its place. However, it is undersized for a tool with four heterogeneous optional parameters and no output schema; the brevity leaves critical semantic gaps rather than achieving efficient completeness.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters covering URL, host, JSON, and timezone, but the description does not explain what classification is returned, whether parameters are alternatives or combined, or what 'compatibility' means. Some context exists—classification and privacy—but it is far from complete.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already documented individually. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema descriptions such as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate' are sufficient to support a baseline score of 3.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified,' which conveys a verb and a broad outcome, but it never specifies what 'compatibility' means or which resource is being classified. It is vague rather than a tautology, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone.
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 about when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this tool, so an agent has no basis for routing to it.
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 carries the burden. It accurately communicates a non-destructive, read-only operation and the exclusions, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what happens with malformed input.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key functional point is front-loaded. It could slightly benefit from a usage hint, but it is well-structured for its brevity.
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 and no output schema, so the description provides only partial context. An agent can infer the basic operation but lacks information about expected return structure or how invalid input is handled.
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 individually. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how the parameters relate to the hostname splitting behavior, keeping this at the 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 action ('Split a hostname into labels') and a clear exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which clarifies the tool's scope relative to potential lookups. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations. The text implies a parsing/filtering utility but leaves the agent to infer appropriate invocation context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies the tool provides or returns common IANA zone names, but it does not state whether it reads, lists, validates, or transforms anything, nor does it explain the role of the url, host, and json 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 very short, but brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness; it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. A single vague noun phrase does not earn its place as a tool 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?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains almost nothing about the operation, return value, or intended invocation. This is inadequate for an agent to reliably select or call the 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 each parameter has its own documented meaning. However, the tool description does not connect these parameters to the stated purpose, especially the unrelated-looking url, host, and json fields, leaving the parameter-to-operation mapping unclear.
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 a noun phrase—'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'—with no verb indicating what the tool actually does. It mostly restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from the sibling 'timezone' or 'utc-time' 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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a context, but it is too vague to help an agent choose correctly.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior: a read-only network fetch of a public robots.txt returning only group counts. It does not mention error handling, redirects, or rate limits, but it covers the main behavioral expectation.
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?
Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the key action, precise about the returned data. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition.
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 4 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. The definition fails to explain how the unrelated-looking parameters relate to the robots.txt fetch, what the response structure is beyond group counts, or how to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the parameter descriptions (normalize/cite, hostname, validate JSON, timezone) do not align with the stated robots.txt purpose. The description adds no guidance on which parameter should be used as the fetch target, so an agent cannot reliably map the schema to the tool's purpose.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and scopes the return value ('group counts only'), making the core purpose clear. It does not differentiate from siblings, but is easily distinguishable by name and intent. The apparent mismatch with the input schema adds ambiguity but does not erase the stated purpose.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and names no alternatives. The phrase 'group counts only' implies a lightweight use case, but that is left to inference rather than stated.
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 behavioral disclosure burden, and it successfully reveals a non-obvious behavior: query strings and fragments are discarded from the result. It also makes the output shape clear by stating that origin, host, and path are returned, though it does not address invalid-input handling or error behavior.
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 put the primary behavior first and the most important exception second. Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.
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 description covers the core behavior and the schema covers individual parameter meanings, making this minimally viable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and four loosely related optional parameters, the definition is incomplete because it never explains how the URL operation relates to the unrelated-looking `json` and `zone` inputs.
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 even without parameter details in the description. The description itself does not clarify how the `host`, `json`, or `zone` properties relate to URL normalization, leaving the schema's generic descriptions to carry that meaning.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query strings and fragments are dropped. It is unambiguous about the core function, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools because no relevant siblings or alternatives are named.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs the origin, host, or path of a URL, and it clarifies that query/fragment data will not be preserved. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema's 'HTTPS URL' hint provides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
16 random hex chars
| 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 states the output and never explains side effects, randomness guarantees, or how the four input parameters relate (or fail to relate) to hex generation. The mismatch between the description and the heterogeneous schema is unexplained.
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?
Four words with no filler, front-loading the essential output fact. For an extremely simple tool this is as concise as it needs to be.
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?
Despite the simple core function, the context is not complete: no output schema, no annotations, and an input schema with four unrelated-looking optional parameters. The description should state that parameters are ignored or explain their role, which it does not.
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; each parameter already has a clear meaning in the input schema. However, the description adds no parameter-level semantics and does not clarify why URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters belong to a random-hex tool, so it stays at 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 identifies the exact output resource — 16 random hex characters — and this clearly separates it from the URL, timezone, and validation siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generates', but the intended action is unambiguous from the name and description.
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 choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description is a bare output spec, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It simply states what the catalog is, not how the tool behaves, what parameters trigger, whether it returns a lookup, validates input, or performs any side effects. This is far below what is needed for safe invocation.
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 and has no filler words, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified: for a tool with four unrelated-looking parameters and no annotations, one sentence that merely restates the subject is not appropriately sized. It is concise without being informative.
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 description is inadequate for the tool's apparent complexity. With four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of how url, host, json, or zone relate to HTTP status codes, an agent cannot determine what inputs to pass, what operation occurs, or what response 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%, so each parameter has some textual explanation. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate. However, the provided parameter semantics (URL normalization, JSON validation, IANA timezone) appear disconnected from the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, which weakens overall usability.
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 essentially a restatement of the tool name: status-catalog becomes 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It adds a small amount of domain specificity ('common HTTP') but provides no verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell what invoking the tool actually does. It also does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as citation or compatibility.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any condition, prerequisite, or exclusion, and the sibling tools are not referenced. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over citation or compatibility.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention how invalid timezones are handled, whether a network call is made, or how the extra schema parameters (url, host, json) affect execution. The unexplained mismatch between the description and schema is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified for a schema with four parameters, especially given the apparent mismatch. It is concise but does not earn its place by disambiguating the tool's actual interface.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema containing four heterogeneous parameters. The one-sentence description leaves an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool: it does not clarify which parameter(s) are relevant, whether the others are ignored, or what the response format is. This is a serious 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already says for `zone`. More importantly, the description fails to explain the presence or role of url, host, and json, which are irrelevant to a timezone lookup. An agent cannot confidently determine whether those parameters are ignored, required, or serve an alternate purpose.
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, distinct action: retrieving the current time for a named IANA timezone. This clearly separates timezone from its siblings like citation or validate_json. However, the input schema contains unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not addressed, so the description alone does not fully clarify which parameters belong to this tool's purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., timezone validity), and no exclusions. An agent cannot infer the intended context beyond the bare statement of what it does.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only states the output is a UTC timestamp but does not mention whether the zone parameter affects the result, whether the other parameters are ignored, or what the exact response format is.
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 short and to the point, which is good for conciseness. However, it may be too under-specified to be genuinely useful, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of each parameter, whether they are optional, and what the actual return value looks like, leaving a significant gap for correct 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 each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the description adds no value beyond the schema and does not clarify why a time tool accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters, leaving semantic relationships unexplained.
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 UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time. However, it does not explain how the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this behavior, which is confusing and undermines clarity.
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 compatibility or domain-shape. It does not state that the parameters are optional or irrelevant, leaving an agent uncertain about what arguments to pass.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one meaningful behavior—the body is discarded. However, it does not state what the tool returns on valid versus invalid JSON, whether any state/network changes occur, or error behavior, which is important since there is no output schema.
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 filler; the core action and the critical side-effect are both front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 definition is largely usable for a simple validation tool, and 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter details. However, with no output schema, the description should have explained how the validation result is returned (boolean, error, etc.) and addressed the irrelevant-looking parameters; these gaps keep it at the minimum viable level.
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 3 applies; the schema already documents all four parameters. The description correctly refers to the JSON body without adding syntax or formatting details. Note that the description does nothing to explain why unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) exist in the schema, but it is not penalized heavily because the schema covers them.
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 ('Check') against a defined resource ('whether a body is valid JSON'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable without tautology. It also adds a useful scope detail (the body is discarded). Since the sibling list contains only the tool itself, no sibling differentiation is required.
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 as a validation-only check and signals that the body will not be preserved, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any preconditions. With no meaningful siblings, there is no exclusions guidance, so usage context is mostly inferred.
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-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlrandom-hex16status-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!
Exact hashing, base64/hex/URL encoding, JWT decoding and UUIDs for AI agents. No auth required.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both accept URLs and return host/scheme, so an agent could select the wrong one. timezone/utc-time/iana-zones and compatibility/status-catalog also have overlapping territory, though the descriptions provide some separation.
Names are readable but follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun compounds or standalone nouns (timezone, status-catalog, compatibility). This mix is not chaotic, but it lacks a predictable pattern.
11 tools is not excessive, and each utility is small and self-contained. However, the set feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, and some tools could plausibly be consolidated.
The tools cover basic URL inspection, HTTP status, time lookups, JSON validation, and random generation, but the server's intended domain is unclear. Within that mix, there are notable gaps such as no timezone conversion, no URL encoding/decoding, and no way to inspect HTTP headers, so coverage feels incomplete.