Parse and validate a URL. Returns decomposed components: protocol, hostname, port, path, query parameters, hash, and origin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | URL to validate and parse |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| hash | No | ||
| port | No | ||
| valid | No | ||
| origin | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| hostname | No | ||
| pathname | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| query_params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "input": "https://www.ia-qa.com/mcp?x=1#y"
+ }
+]Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "full": {},
+ "hash": {},
+ "hostname": {},
+ "origin": {},
+ "pathname": {},
+ "port": {},
+ "protocol": {},
+ "query_params": {},
+ "search": {},
+ "valid": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns decomposed URL components, but it does not explain validation failure behavior, accepted URL schemes, or normalization rules.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return components. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only parser with an output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It omits only edge-case behavior such as how malformed URLs are reported, which the output schema may cover.
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%, and the sole parameter is already documented as 'URL to validate and parse'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered single-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb+resource: parse and validate a URL. It also states the return shape, making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling, though none appear to be direct URL-parsing alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description: call it when you need to parse or validate a URL. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives, so guidance is only minimally viable.
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.