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 aspect: 'Page content is not stored,' which is a transparency note. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as side effects, error handling, or idempotency, which would be helpful for an agent.
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 and well-structured, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary words and presents the core functionality and a key behavioral note efficiently.
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 four seemingly heterogeneous parameters, the description lacks essential context about how they interact or how the tool integrates with related tools. No output schema or examples are provided, leaving an agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
While every parameter has a description (100% schema coverage), the descriptions are generic and do not explain how each parameter relates to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' and 'zone' seem unrelated to returning HTTP status for a URL, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 primary action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but the mention of unrelated parameters (json, zone) creates ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose. The verb and resource are specific, but the mismatch with the parameter list lowers clarity.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. The description does not mention any specific use cases or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool.
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 outputs, but citation and normalize-url overlap in URL parsing, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with citation's request classification.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, iana-zones) with verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). 'cc-gb' and 'compatibility' do not follow a clear pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and not overwhelming. The set is broad but each tool serves a distinct utility purpose, so the count feels acceptable.
The tools cover common web/network utilities like URL parsing, time zones, HTTP statuses, and JSON validation, but the domain is not clearly defined. Obvious companions such as a direct HTTP fetch or DNS/WHOIS lookup are missing.