Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful note ('Page content is not stored'), but it does not disclose that the tool likely performs live network requests, potential side effects of hitting the URL, error behavior, or caching, which are important for a URL-checking tool.
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 crisp sentences, front-loading the core action and adding a privacy-relevant note with no fluff. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting the json/zone parameters.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, which raises the completeness bar. The description explains one output shape (host, scheme, HTTP status) but omits how the json and zone inputs behave in the call, what the actual response looks like, and failure modes. An agent cannot fully plan an invocation from this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description misaligns with the schema: it presents 'host' as an output while the schema defines 'host' as an input parameter ('Public hostname'). It also silently ignores 'json' and 'zone', so the description does not help an agent understand why those parameters exist or how they relate to the stated 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This clearly distinguishes the core action. However, the input schema includes 'json' and 'zone' parameters that are entirely unmentioned, so the description does not cover the full purpose surface.
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 its siblings, such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description says only what the tool does, with no context on selection criteria or exclusions.
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 have clear distinct purposes, but http-401 and status-catalog overlap on HTTP status information, and citation vs normalize-url both handle URL components. compatibility is also vague enough that an agent may struggle to know when to choose it.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the set mixes verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and utc-time. The pattern is readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but a few seem like one-off conveniences rather than part of a cohesive set, such as http-401 and compatibility. The count is not problematic, though slightly padded.
The implied domain is privacy-preserving HTTP/URL utilities, but there are notable gaps like redirect inspection, header checks, or URL comparison. Timezone and JSON validation tools feel disconnected from the core purpose, so the overall surface is incomplete and lacks a clear workflow.