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 discloses the primary behavior (returning origin, host, path; dropping query and fragment) but does not mention edge cases, error handling, or any side effects. With no annotations, this provides moderate transparency.
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, using two short sentences to convey the core functionality without unnecessary detail.
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 because it does not account for the extra parameters (host, json, zone) that appear in the schema. This mismatch suggests the description may be inaccurate or the tool has unrelated parameters, leaving the agent without a complete understanding.
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 description does not explain any of the parameters (url, host, json, zone). The schema descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., host as 'Public hostname', json as 'JSON text to validate') and do not clarify how they relate to URL normalization. The description adds no value for parameter usage.
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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource (URL), and specifies the outputs (origin, host, path) and that query/fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone). It does not mention any conditions or scenarios that would make it the preferred choice.
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.
Each tool performs a distinct function: country lookup, URL inspection, robots.txt parsing, timezone conversion, and JSON validation. Even URL-related tools are clearly separated by their outputs and actions, so there is no meaningful overlap.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), some are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone), and one is an opaque abbreviation (cc-fr). A consistent verb-noun or noun-only convention would improve predictability.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number and stays within the typical well-scoped range. The tools cover several distinct utility areas, though the server's stated identity as 'ISO country FR' does not fully explain the broad collection.
The tool set appears to cover a handful of common web-development utilities, but the domain is not strongly defined. It lacks obvious related operations such as URL encoding/decoding, DNS lookup, or broader country data, so coverage feels partial rather than comprehensive.