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?
The description discloses one behavioral trait ('Page content is not stored'), which is useful, but annotations are absent, so the burden falls on the description. It fails to disclose that json and zone inputs appear to be accepted but unexplained, creating confusion about the tool's real behavior.
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 short and front-loaded, but under-specification is not true conciseness. A single sentence for a tool with four unrelated-looking parameters (url, host, json, zone) omits critical information that the sentence should have earned its place by providing.
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?
With 4 parameters spanning URL handling, JSON validation, and timezone data, plus no output schema and no annotations, this one-sentence description is seriously incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does with json and zone, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, so 100% coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—'host, scheme, and HTTP status' loosely relates to url and host, but it does not clarify json or zone semantics.
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 function ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which gives a clear verb+resource for a core use case. However, it does not account for the json and zone parameters in the schema, so the overall tool purpose is ambiguous and not fully distinguished from potential siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning conditions, exclusions, or suitable contexts for URL citation versus other possible tools.
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 actions, but several HTTP/URL helpers (citation, normalize-url, inspect-robots, status-catalog) operate in the same general space and could cause misselection. The 'compatibility' tool is especially vague, making its boundary unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase and hyphenated, but the word patterns are mixed: verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json sit next to noun-only names like citation and timezone, plus the abbreviated c-to-f. This makes the naming readable but not predictable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the server's stated purpose is a single Celsius-to-Fahrenheit conversion. The ten unrelated utilities make the set feel like a grab bag rather than a well-scoped tool surface.
Within the apparent temperature-conversion domain, only one direction is provided and no reverse conversion exists. The remaining tools are isolated one-off utilities with no coherent workflow or full lifecycle coverage.