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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: returning origin, host, and path, and dropping query/fragment. However, it does not clarify how the other schema parameters (json, zone, host) affect behavior, leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually does with them.
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 only two sentences and contains no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an informative detail about dropped components. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices completeness.
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 incomplete for a tool with four unrelated-looking parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain why 'json', 'zone', and 'host' are accepted, and it does not describe the return structure. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly for anything beyond the basic URL case.
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 some meaning to the 'url' parameter by explaining the output and what is discarded, but it provides no insight into the 'json', 'zone', or 'host' parameters, creating a disconnect between the description and the full parameter set.
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 the tool's function: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This is specific about the operation and output, and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools listed, which all have different purposes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, so an agent has no context for selecting it over other options.
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 a distinct shape or check, but `citation` and `normalize-url` both return URL host/scheme information, and `timezone`/`utc-time` overlap enough to cause occasional misselection. Overall, tool descriptions clarify the intended purpose in most cases.
All tool names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent casing convention. The mix of noun-style names like `citation` and verb-object names like `validate-json` is a minor semantic inconsistency but not a confusing one.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a lightweight utility server. Some reference-style helpers like `status-catalog` and `iana-zones` could be consolidated, but the set is not bloated.
The set covers URL, time, phone, JSON, and robots shape checks, but the broad 'shape' theme suggests notable gaps such as email or IP address shape validation and timezone conversion. These omissions are workable but could cause agent dead ends.