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 must carry the transparency burden. It honestly discloses a key behavioral trait: dropping query and fragment. However, it does not explain whether this is a pure string operation, how invalid URLs are handled, or why the schema accepts `host`, `json`, and `zone` – leaving those behaviors opaque.
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, and the primary behavior is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making this excellent in conciseness and structure.
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?
For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context: which parameters actually apply, what happens when multiple are supplied, and what the returned origin/host/path format looks like. The mismatch between the description and the schema's extra parameters makes the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description only covers URL normalization and ignores `host`, `json`, and `zone`. The `json` and `zone` descriptions appear unrelated to URL normalization, and no linkage is provided between the description and the full parameter set, which confuses rather than clarifies invocation.
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 names the exact operation – returning origin, host, and path – and explicitly says query and fragment are dropped, making the core behavior clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, and the extra `json`/`zone` parameters in the schema create some ambiguity, so I cap at 4.
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 statement 'Query and fragment are dropped' gives one implicit exclusion: if a caller needs those parts, this tool is not appropriate. But there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites beyond the schema's 'HTTPS URL' hint.
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 there is real overlap: http-404 is a subset of status-catalog, timezone overlaps utc-time, and citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all parse URLs in slightly different ways. The descriptions clarify intended uses, so an agent can usually pick correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp.
Names are all lowercase kebab-case, which provides a surface-level consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: single nouns, noun-noun compounds, and imperative verb-noun forms. This makes the naming scheme less predictable than a uniform verb_noun or noun-based convention.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the set is not tightly scoped: URL/HTTP tools are mixed with timezone, JSON, and compatibility tools. A more focused HTTP utility server could easily justify fewer or more cohesive tools.
The inferred domain is URL/HTTP inspection, and the set covers normalization, status codes, and robots, but it lacks obvious related operations such as HTTP headers, redirects, or URL decoding. The presence of unrelated time and JSON tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than deliberately complete.