Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful privacy and side-effect guarantee. However, it does not state whether the tool fetches the URL, follows redirects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, leaving behavioral transparency partial.
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 sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note about content not being stored. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 description is adequate for the basic URL case but not fully complete for the tool's actual parameter surface: it omits the roles of `host`, `json`, and `zone`. With no output schema, the return value is described only at a high level, and the no-storage note is helpful but does not fully compensate for the missing multi-parameter context.
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 because the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only adds context for `url` and does not clarify how `host`, `json`, and `zone` relate to the citation operation. It neither significantly improves on nor contradicts the schema, but leaves potential ambiguity for an agent deciding which parameter to supply.
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 specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, and status-catalog because it returns citation metadata for a URL rather than transforming URLs, validating JSON, or listing status codes.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The intended use is implied by the purpose statement: call this when you need host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, the description does not help an agent choose between this and sibling tools such as normalize-url or status-catalog.
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 operate on URLs (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots) and several on time (business-day, iana-zones, timezone, utc-time), creating some overlap in input types. The descriptions mostly clarify intent, but citation and compatibility in particular could still be confused.
Tool names mix nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound labels (business-day, iana-zones, utc-time). There is no consistent verb_noun or other naming pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not excessive numerically, but the server name 'Weekday vs weekend' suggests a single narrow utility, while most tools are unrelated to that purpose. The set feels scattershot rather than deliberately scoped.
The tools span URL inspection, time/date, and JSON validation without a unifying domain, so there is no coherent capability surface to complete. Each mini-cluster has gaps, such as URL tools that only inspect and time tools that lack conversions or date arithmetic.