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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'The body is discarded.' It also implies a read-only check. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean vs. error) or whether any validation side effects occur.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key side effect. No filler or redundant content.
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 is simple, and the description covers the main action and disposal behavior. But there is no output schema and the return value is unspecified; also, the presence of four unrelated-looking optional parameters is left unexplained, which may confuse an agent.
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?
Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds meaning for the 'json' parameter by clarifying the body is discarded, but it does not help reconcile the seemingly irrelevant url, host, and zone parameters with the validation 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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools, whose names are garbled/unclear, so it stops short of full distinction.
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 versus alternatives, nor any context about where validation is appropriate. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
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 around URL and request inspection: citation and normalize-url both return host/scheme, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status output. The vague compatibility tool compounds the problem, though the time and format-validation tools are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the set mixes imperative verb-noun names (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, compatibility, timezone, ulid-shape). This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and each has a separable utility. The count itself is fine, but the server appears to have drifted from the 'ULID shape check' purpose into a general web/time/format utility bag.
As a privacy-focused inspection toolkit, it covers URL, domain, robots, time, status codes, ULID, and JSON shape checks. However, there are notable gaps such as missing common format validators (UUID, email), no URL encoding/decoding, and the compatibility tool feels like an unexplained dead end.