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, the description carries the full burden. It adds one meaningful behavioral disclosure ('Page content is not stored'), which hints at a network fetch with a privacy guarantee, but it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or whether it is read-only beyond that. Some value is added, but significant gaps remain.
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 core output is front-loaded in the first sentence. It could be slightly more instructive without bloating, but for what it says, it is concise and well ordered.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters that span unrelated concepts (URL, host, JSON, and timezone), the description is too thin. An agent would not know why 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are inputs, or how to combine them with the URL 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little parametric detail, but it does list the return fields (host, scheme, HTTP status), giving context that the schema does not.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), so an agent can tell this is a URL-inspection tool. It is distinguishable from the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
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 like normalize-url or validate-json, nor about prerequisites or URL validity expectations. The agent must infer from the name and description alone.
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 clearly different outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname shapes, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all cover time. A couple of vague names like compatibility and citation could also cause initial misselection.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which gives a visual consistency, but they mix verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and timezone. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to be considered strongly consistent.
11 tools is within a reasonable range and none feels redundant, but the collection spans several unrelated concerns such as URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, and robots.txt. It is slightly broad, though not bloated.
The set covers common lookups like URL normalization, status codes, time, and JSON validation, but there is no coherent domain that ties these together. Obvious adjacent operations such as redirect checking, response header inspection, or rate-limit-specific details are missing, leaving an agent with possible dead ends.