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, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it completely ignores the host, json, and zone parameters in the schema, making it unclear whether they are valid inputs, ignored, or serve a different purpose. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core output and key behavior are front-loaded, and 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?
With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It covers only the url parameter and says nothing about required inputs, error behavior, or the role of the extra schema fields, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description only adds meaning for the url parameter. It fails to explain why a 'normalize-url' tool accepts host, json, and zone, and the schema's own terse descriptions do not resolve this mismatch. An agent cannot reliably determine how to populate or interpret three of the four parameters.
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 verb ('Return') and concrete output fields (origin, host, path) for a URL, and adds a clear behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. This is enough to convey the primary purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling url-citation tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as url-citation or json-validate. The intended use is implied by the description, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.
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 are distinct, but several overlap around URLs and time: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time overlap in purpose. The compatibility tool is especially vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names are mostly lowercase and hyphenated, but the set mixes noun-style names like citation, timezone, and status-catalog with verb-style names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count on its own, but the set feels scattershot relative to the server name 'ISO country US,' which implies a focused country-data service. Only one tool actually relates to the country domain, while the rest span unrelated web, URL, time, and JSON utilities.
As a collection of lightweight, privacy-oriented utilities, the surface is reasonably broad. However, the country-data aspect is severely thin with only cc-us, and there are notable gaps like DNS or HTTP header inspection if this is meant to be a general web-utility server.