ScorpTech x402 Tools

Url Parse

url_parse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse, normalize and clean URLs offline: scheme, credentials (redacted), host type, port, path segments, decoded query parameters and fragment; registrable domain / subdomain / public suffix; IDN to punycode and back; RFC 3986 normalization (case, default ports, dot segments, percent-encoding) plus optional removal of known click-tracking parameters (utm_*, gclid, fbclid, msclkid, _hsenc, mc_eid...), query sorting and fragment stripping; flags URL shorteners. Up to 50 URLs. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/url-parse

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "url_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`urls`	No	Several URLs (JSON array)
`sortQuery`	No
`dropFragment`	No
`stripTracking`	No	Remove known tracking parameters from the normalized URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: credentials are redacted, parsing is offline, known tracking parameters can be stripped by default, shorteners are flagged, batch size is capped at 50, and there is a per-call x402/Solana price. This gives an agent the operational context needed to invoke and budget the tool correctly.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and packs a lot of relevant detail into a compact block. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, but most of the information earns its place; clearer formatting would improve scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating parsed components and normalization behavior, and it adds pricing and access details. It still omits the exact response shape and edge-case behavior such as invalid URLs or precedence between single and batch inputs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates well by explaining query sorting, fragment stripping, tracking-parameter removal, and the 50-URL batch limit. It does not clarify how the singular `url` and plural `urls` parameters interact if both are supplied, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: parse, normalize and clean URLs. It details the exact parsing outputs and normalization features, which differentiates it from neighboring tools such as url_links_extract and url_markdown without needing to name them explicitly.

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 use case is strongly implied by the description, and the batch limit of 50 URLs plus the HTTPS endpoint give useful invocation context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like url_links_extract, url_markdown, or redirect_chain.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?