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 reveals that the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns only group counts, but it does not state network/error behavior, rate limits, whether the fetch follows redirects, or what happens when the URL is unreachable. The action is a read operation, but nothing about reversibility or side effects is mentioned.
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 extremely short sentence (6 words), which is efficient in length but arguably under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the core action, but it fails to include necessary context that would make the tool usable. There is no wasted text, but the brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a low-complexity but network-dependent operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'group counts', the relationship between parameters, expected return format, or failure modes. The tool appears to have a narrow purpose but the description leaves too much to inference.
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-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it does not clarify why 'json' or 'zone' are relevant to inspecting robots.txt, nor how 'url' and 'host' relate to fetching the file. The schema's own descriptions are also minimal but technically present.
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 verb and a resource ('Fetch a public robots.txt'), so the basic action is present, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings or clarify what 'group counts' means. The title 'inspect-robots' and description imply a robots.txt inspection tool, yet the input schema contains unrelated parameters (json, zone) that create confusion rather than 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (citation, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, URL format expectations, or exclusions. The description assumes the agent already knows the purpose, which is inadequate for selecting between tools.
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 in the URL/host space (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots), so an agent may need to read descriptions carefully to select the right one. The time and HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague enough to create selection uncertainty.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the underlying convention is mixed: verb-first names like normalize-url and validate-json coexist with noun-first compounds like semver-parse and domain-shape, plus bare nouns like citation and timezone. The set is readable but lacks a consistent naming pattern.
For the broad set of read-only utilities exposed, 11 tools is a reasonable count and none feels redundant. However, the scope spans URLs, time, HTTP status, JSON, and semver, which feels slightly broad for a server whose name implies a narrow 'SemVer numbers only' purpose.
The tools cover several useful read-only operations, including URL inspection, time lookups, status codes, JSON validation, and semver parsing. The overall domain is diffuse, and there are notable gaps such as timezone conversion, URL redirect/validation details, and semver comparison.