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 explicitly states that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations, it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether it performs network requests, handles redirects, or has rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that state the primary function and a caveat. It is well-structured and to the point, though it could benefit from a brief explanation of the additional parameters to avoid ambiguity.
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?
Given the mismatch between the description and the schema, the tool is incomplete from an agent's perspective. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain how to use the non-URL parameters or what the expected response format is. This leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.
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 schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but the tool description only references a URL. The parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' seem unrelated to the stated purpose, and the description does not clarify how they are used. This creates significant confusion and undermines the usefulness of the parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), which is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or inspect-robots. The additional note about not storing page content further clarifies the 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor selecting this tool over siblings.
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 functions, but names like 'citation', 'compatibility', and 'cc-br' are vague and could be confused with one another or with URL-related tools. The intended purpose of several tools is not immediately clear from the names.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb-noun patterns ('normalize-url', 'validate-json'), while others are bare nouns or adjectives ('citation', 'compatibility', 'timezone'), and one is a specific code ('cc-br'). No consistent naming convention is applied across the set.
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical 3–15 range and does not feel excessive. The breadth is somewhat wide, but the number itself is reasonable for a multi-purpose utility server.
The tool set appears to cover disjoint areas (URLs, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, country codes) without a clear unifying domain, so it is hard to assess whether it is complete. Several related operations are missing (e.g., URL encoding/decoding, HTTP request execution), leaving the set feeling partial and ad hoc.