Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

url_normalize

Normalize URL form

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to normalize

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "URL to normalize",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "url"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without explaining what normalization does (e.g., lowercasing, removing default ports, handling fragments), or any side effects or edge cases.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structure or additional information, making it minimally useful for an agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the simple input schema, the description lacks any context about output format, behavior, or usage context. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'url' with a description ('URL to normalize'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Normalize URL form' simply restates the tool name 'url_normalize' in sentence form, adding no specific information about what normalization involves. It is essentially a tautology, failing to distinguish the tool from siblings like validate_url or extract_url.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, which is particularly problematic given the large number of URL-related sibling tools.

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

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or identical purposes, such as ocr_url and ocr_image (both OCR from an image URL), compare_texts and text_diff (both compare or diff texts), extract_url and read_url (both extract webpage content), and content_hash and hash_text (both compute hashes). The boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed. Many tools use verb_noun (extract_url, validate_email), but others use noun_verb (language_detect, html_clean), single words (advisor, crawl, retrieve), or noun_noun (job_status, page_metadata). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 100 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for a generic agent toolkit. While some tools are distinct and useful, the sheer number does not align with a focused purpose; many tools are redundant or highly specialized, and the count exceeds what is typically manageable for an agent to reason about.

Completeness3/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of utilities including extraction, validation, processing, research, memory, and orchestration. However, there are no CRUD tools for creating/updating/deleting resources, no database or file system operations, and no integration beyond web/API basics. This leaves significant gaps for agents that need general lifecycle management, though it does handle many common tasks.

Resources