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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return fields (host, scheme, HTTP status) and a meaningful behavioral trait (content is not stored). It does not mention fetch behavior, errors, or rate limits, but for a read-only citation utility this is substantially transparent.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important information (return value and scope) is front-loaded. 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?
The description is complete for the URL-citation path but not for the tool as a whole: it gives no hint that 'json' and 'zone' are separate, supported functions. Since there is no output schema, the described return values help, but the multi-purpose nature of the tool is hidden.
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 no meaning for the 'json' or 'zone' parameters — it only covers the URL path — but the schema already documents those parameters with adequate one-line descriptions.
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 resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), and adds a clarifying disclaimer ('Page content is not stored'). It is clear on the core behavior, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tools 'url-normalize' and 'host', which overlap with the same domain.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when you need citation-style metadata for a URL. The 'Page content is not stored' note gives some decision guidance, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or references to alternative 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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources: URL components, IP version, robots.txt, time zones, JSON, and HTTP status codes. However, citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent might pause to determine which tool applies.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun compounds like status-catalog and iana-zones, so there is no consistent semantic naming pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility server, and each tool performs a distinct small task. The scope is broad—covering URLs, HTTP, time, and JSON—so it feels less tightly focused than a single-domain server.
The set covers simple URL inspection, HTTP status lookup, current time retrieval, and JSON validation. Natural gaps remain, such as timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, or deeper network diagnostics, so the surface is useful but not comprehensive.