AgentBIT

URL Parse

agentbit.url_parse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse a URL into its components: scheme, host, port, path, query and fragment. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC, Base).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "agentbit.url_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`_payment`	No	Optional base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE payload. Omit to receive payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the pay-per-call x402 mechanism, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, error behavior, or payment failure handling. Additional value is modest.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: output components front-loaded, payment noted second. Zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple parsing tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity 2-param tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and payment model. It doesn't specify return format beyond listing components, but that's not strictly required here. Slight gap: no mention of how errors (e.g., invalid URL) are handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% – the _payment parameter is documented in schema, but the required 'input' parameter has no schema description. The description doesn't add meaning to 'input' beyond implying it's a URL. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Parse) and resource (URL) and enumerates the exact output components (scheme, host, port, path, query, fragment). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like url_threat_check or dns_inspect without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (decompose a URL) but doesn't state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., url_threat_check for safety, dns_inspect for DNS). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment mention.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AgentBIT tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.