Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 transparently mentions that query and fragment components are dropped, which is an important behavioral detail. However, it does not describe error handling for invalid URLs, whether the input must be an absolute URL, or any other edge-case behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to state the output and the normalization behavior. It contains no unnecessary words or filler and front-loads the key information.
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 incomplete in context because it only explains the URL-processing behavior while the schema includes three unrelated parameters. It also does not specify the output format or structure, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool with the given parameters.
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 parameter schema contains several fields that are unrelated to URL normalization: 'host' is described as 'Public hostname', 'json' says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name'. These appear to be copied from other tools and do not make sense for this tool. The description does not clarify how or whether these parameters should be used, making the parameter semantics severely misleading.
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 the tool returns the origin, host, and path from a URL, and explicitly notes that query strings and fragments are removed. This is a specific, actionable purpose that differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which are URL normalization tools.
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 implies when to use the tool—whenever origin, host, or path components are needed from a URL—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No direct usage guidance is given beyond the functional description.
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.