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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important behavior of dropping query and fragment and lists the returned components, but it omits edge cases such as invalid URLs, normalization rules, or side effects.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and the key query/fragment behavior are stated clearly and economically.
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 input parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the description only accounts for URL normalization. It does not explain how host, json, or zone should be used, nor what happens on invalid input, making the description insufficient for confident invocation.
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 extra parameter information in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it is silent on the host, json, and zone parameters, leaving an unexplained mismatch between the described behavior and the input schema.
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 names a concrete operation (Return) and resource (URL), and specifies the exact derived fields: origin, host, and path. It also states that query and fragment are dropped, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools focused on JSON validation or timezone data.
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 implies the tool is for extracting URL components while discarding query/fragment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended usage is only inferable from the behavior described.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, especially citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape, all of which inspect URLs or hostnames. The time-related tools utc-time and year-utc also overlap because a timestamp contains the year. Other tools are more distinct, but the boundary between these clusters is not always clear.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives some visual consistency. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object names (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are standalone nouns or noun-noun compounds (citation, timezone, status-catalog, year-utc). This makes the naming readable but not predictably consistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility-style server, neither too sparse nor overwhelming. The count feels slightly inflated by the mixed domains, but no individual tool is redundant enough to cut. Overall, the count is appropriate for a general-purpose utilities server.
The set covers a few small domains—URL inspection, time/timezone, HTTP status, and JSON validation—but none are fully fleshed out. For example, there is no timezone conversion or date formatting tool, and URL tools lack any operation for actual page retrieval. While the tools are self-contained, the overall surface feels more like a collection of samples than a complete workflow.