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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, but it omits any behavior around JSON validation or timezone handling, and provides no information about return format, errors, or side effects. The schema note that JSON is 'discarded after the check' is not reflected in the description.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior and states the drop behavior afterward. It is concise and well-ordered, though it omits important context about other 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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, but the description only covers URL-related behavior. It does not explain how to use `json` and `zone`, what the output looks like, or how `host` relates to the return value. This leaves the description incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning and fails to connect `json` and `zone` to the described URL behavior. The `host` parameter role is also ambiguous relative to the stated output. This disconnect pulls the score down.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' However, the input schema includes `json` and `zone` parameters that are not mentioned in the description, making the tool's full purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading about what it actually handles.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It only implies that it is for extracting URL components, but the unrelated `json` and `zone` parameters add confusion about when this tool is appropriate.
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.