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 |
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 burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal one meaningful behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'), which helps an agent understand result transformation. However, it does not explain output shape, behavior on invalid URLs, or side effects, so transparency is partial.
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 primary action is front-loaded, and the extra behavioral detail ('Query and fragment are dropped') is placed concisely at the end. 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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It states the basic result but leaves out the output structure, error behavior, and how the unrelated-looking parameters (json, zone, host) fit in. This is under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters.
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 the schema has 100% description coverage, the description does not clarify how the url, host, json, and zone parameters relate to the described behavior. In fact, 'host' appears as a return value in the description while also being a parameter name, which could confuse an agent. The description adds no useful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and even adds a scoping detail ('Query and fragment are dropped'). It communicates the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like validate-json or utc-time.
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. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the short functional statement.
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 have distinct outputs, but the URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) and time-related tools (utc-time, timezone, iana-zones) form overlapping clusters that an agent could misselect. Descriptions clarify the differences, but the boundaries are not immediately obvious.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the set mixes imperative verb_noun names (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun/adjective names (citation, compatibility, timezone, base64-ok). This is readable but not a consistent naming pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable size for a general-purpose utility server and none seem redundant enough to cut. A few could be consolidated, such as timezone and utc-time, but the count is not excessive.
The server covers several utility categories, including URL analysis, time, JSON validation, HTTP status, and base64, but has noticeable gaps such as no base64 decode, no timezone conversion, and no URL encoding/decoding. These missing operations limit what an agent can accomplish without another server.