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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy guarantee. However, it fails to disclose that the tool also appears to validate JSON and handle timezone names based on the schema, and it says nothing about network behavior, redirects, or errors.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable non-storage guarantee. Every word earns its place.
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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses the URL-related behavior. The 'json' and 'zone' parameters are completely unexplained in the prose, so an agent cannot determine whether they belong to separate operations or how they relate to the described purpose. This is a significant completeness gap.
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 each parameter already has a textual description; baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies that 'url' is used to obtain host, scheme, and HTTP status, but it provides no additional semantics for 'host', 'json', or 'zone' beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is clear and the negative sentence 'Page content is not stored' distinguishes it from content-fetching tools. However, the input schema also includes 'json' and 'zone' parameters whose purpose is not reflected in the description, so the description does not fully capture the tool's scope.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The comment 'Page content is not stored' weakly hints at a metadata-only use case, but it does not name sibling tools or clarify contexts such as URL normalization versus JSON validation or timezone handling.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as byte-count, validate-json, and utc-time. However, citation and normalize-url both handle URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide time information, which could lead to occasional misselection.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (byte-count, timezone, status-catalog) while others are verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no clear verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count for a utility server covering URLs, time, robots, and data validation. Each tool does something different, though a few are quite trivial, making the set slightly broad but not excessive.
The tools cover several common utility categories like URL normalization, current time, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. However, the scope is broad and shallow, leaving obvious gaps such as domain lookups, HTTP request mechanics, or date formatting, and there is no unifying workflow to judge full coverage.