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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key destructive trait: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' However, it omits other relevant behavior such as handling of invalid URLs, whether HTTPS is required (though the schema hints at it), and what the return structure looks like.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the query/fragment dropping note is a concise, valuable addition. Nothing in the description is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return shape, but it only names components (origin, host, path). It also fails to explain how the host, json, and zone inputs relate to URL normalization, and it does not state that all parameters are optional or which are actually relevant. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.
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 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and, more problematically, the schema contains unrelated-looking params such as json and zone. The 'host' param in the schema is also potentially confused with the 'host' mentioned in the description output, but the schema itself provides some 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 and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also adds a distinctive behavior, dropping query and fragment, which helps separate it from generic URL or citation tools. It stops short of naming sibling tools, but the purpose itself is clear.
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 such as citation or domain-shape. The description implies URL normalization use, but it does not state scenarios, exclusions, or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
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 distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url both return URL components and overlap on host/scheme. The time-related tools (iana-zones, timezone, utc-time) share a domain, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent may struggle to select it correctly.
All names are lowercase and kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes noun labels like citation and timezone with verb phrases like inspect-robots and validate-json, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'UUID Mint' and contains a loose collection of URL, time, HTTP, JSON, and UUID utilities. The count is not excessive, but the tools do not form a cohesive, well-scoped set.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so common workflows are only partially covered. For example, there is UUID generation but no UUID validation, timezone lookup but no timezone conversion, and URL inspection but no full URL parsing or content retrieval.