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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that group counts are returned. It does not explain network behavior, error handling, auth requirements, or which parameter determines the robots.txt target, and the parameter list implies unrelated behaviors like JSON validation and timezone lookup.
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, and 'group counts only' adds useful scoping information. It is terse, but terseness is not the issue here; the lack of behavioral and parameter context is captured elsewhere.
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, four misleading parameter descriptions, and only a one-line description. An agent has no way to know how to supply the target site, how the result is formatted, or what failures to expect, making this materially incomplete.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, every parameter description appears to belong to a different tool domain—URL normalization/citation, JSON validation, and IANA timezone lookup. None of these clearly maps to fetching a robots.txt, and the description itself names no parameters, so an agent cannot reliably determine what input to provide.
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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the exact output shape ('return group counts only'), so an agent understands the core purpose. It is slightly ambiguous which input identifies the target site, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, but the core purpose is clear.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are stated. The only implicit signal is that it is for fetching public robots.txt group counts, but there is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources like URLs, hostnames, robots.txt, timezones, and JSON. The main overlap is between citation and normalize-url, which both expose host information from a URL, and between timezone and utc-time when the requested zone is UTC. Descriptions are generally clear enough to disambiguate.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, and each tool has a distinct small purpose. A few could be consolidated, such as utc-time with timezone or citation with normalize-url, but the count is not excessive.
The server covers basic URL inspection, time retrieval, JSON validation, and word counting, but notable gaps exist such as URL validation, timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, and JSON formatting. The surface is more of a grab bag than a coherent full-featured utility domain.