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 full burden and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. It also clarifies the output is origin/host/path. It doesn't cover error handling or edge cases, but the main normalization behavior is 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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main behavior is front-loaded and the dropping of query/fragment is a valuable detail. This is an example of appropriately sized description.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to explain how these parameters fit together. It does not. An agent cannot tell whether to pass `url`, `host`, `json`, or `zone`, or what happens if multiple parameters are provided. The description is incomplete for the full tool contract.
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 each parameter has some textual description. However, the description only addresses the `url` use case and leaves `host`, `json`, and `zone` unexplained in relation to the tool's purpose. The input parameter `host` is especially confusing because the description also names `host` as an output, without clarifying its role.
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 operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This is clear and matches the tool name, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools.
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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need normalized URL components. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions.
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.
A few clusters overlap—citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time—but the descriptions generally make the intended output clear. The vague 'compatibility' tool adds some ambiguity, but no tools are truly indistinguishable.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), while others are noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog) or single nouns (citation, timezone). This is readable but not predictably consistent.
11 tools is within the reasonable 3-15 range and each tool has a distinct purpose. However, the set spans URL inspection, time, UUID, JSON, and HTTP status, so it feels slightly broader than the server name implies.
For a shape and inspection utility server, the main categories are covered: URL normalization, robots.txt inspection, HTTP status, timezone lookup, current time, JSON validation, and UUID shape checking. Minor gaps exist like redirect chains or JSON schema validation, but the core surface is not severely incomplete.