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 bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention returning components and dropping query/fragment, which is useful. However, it omits details about invalid URL handling, edge cases, or side effects (e.g., does it modify anything?). The disclosure is adequate but not rich.
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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that lead with the main behavior and then add a key detail about what is dropped. There is no fluff or repetitive content.
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 four diverse parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the URL-related functionality. It does not explain the relationship between 'url' and the other three parameters, nor whether they are alternatives or complementary. This leaves an agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool for the non-URL 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by clarifying that query and fragment are stripped. However, it does not address the 'host', 'json', or 'zone' parameters, creating ambiguity about how they should be used with the tool. Still, the schema already documents each parameter individually.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL and dropping query/fragment. This is a specific verb+resource that conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description implies it is for URL normalization, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other tools.
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.
citation and normalize-url both return overlapping URL metadata, http-500 overlaps with status-catalog, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones form a fuzzy time-related cluster. compatibility is also vague about what it classifies, making tool boundaries unclear.
Names are consistently hyphenated but mix noun phrases like citation, compatibility, and http-500 with verb-object forms like normalize-url, inspect-robots, and validate-json. There is no consistent naming grammar across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is unfocused: URL handling, time, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation are unrelated concerns. The number is not extreme, but the tools do not form a coherent, well-scoped set.
The set covers only isolated read-only utilities and leaves obvious gaps for a server named HTTP 500 internal-error: no actual error-diagnosis or HTTP request tools beyond status meaning/catalog, no timezone conversion, and no JSON processing beyond validation. Each micro-domain is only partially covered.