USE THIS to verify a URL before fetching or storing it — parses it with the WHATWG URL standard and additionally checks that the host's TLD is a real IANA suffix. Returns protocol, hostname, port, path and whether the TLD is known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to validate (e.g. https://example.com/path). |
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?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the validation algorithm (WHATWG standard, IANA TLD check) and the exact return values (protocol, hostname, port, path, TLD known). No contradictions with annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without wordiness. It is front-loaded with the action and 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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers input, behavior, and output completely. No output schema needed due to clear return description.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the schema already explains the parameter well. The description adds context about usage but does not enhance the parameter semantics significantly.
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 the verb 'validate', the resource 'URL', and specifies the validation methods: WHATWG URL parsing and TLD IANA suffix check. It also lists return fields, distinguishing it from sibling validators.
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 explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a URL before fetching or storing it', providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives explicitly, but the sibling list implies specialization.
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.
Each tool targets a specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.