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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, errors, edge cases, or permissions. Given the simple transformation, some transparency is expected but entirely absent.
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 itself is concise and to the point, but the overall tool definition is structurally confusing due to the mismatch between the description and the schema. The one-sentence description is efficient, but the schema inconsistency undermines the structure.
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 does not explain the role of the extra parameters, nor does it provide any output schema or return format. It also fails to mention any context about URL handling, such as supported schemes or error behavior. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use 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 schema lists four parameters, but only 'url' is explained in the description. The parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have schema descriptions that appear to belong to other tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone) and are not integrated into the tool's stated purpose. This severe mismatch leaves the semantics of most parameters undefined.
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's function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that are not mentioned in the description, which introduces some confusion about the actual purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable contexts, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools like validate-json or timezone.
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, though 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handle URLs, and 'timezone'/'utc-time' overlap in time handling. 'compatibility' is vague but not truly duplicate.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-led ('inspect-robots', 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and noun-led ('citation', 'timezone', 'status-catalog') patterns; 'cc-de' is an outlier.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but the server name implies a narrow ISO country (DE) purpose while most tools are unrelated web/time/JSON utilities, making the set feel mismatched.
As a country-ISO resource, only cc-de covers that purpose; as a general utility set, it lacks many standard web operations (e.g., actual HTTP fetch, DNS, text processing), so completeness is poor for the apparent stated purpose.