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 that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only beyond this note.
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 with no superfluous words.
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: the tool name 'citation' is unexplained, the parameters seem mismatched, and there is no output schema or clear relationship to sibling tools. The reader is left confused about the actual purpose and usage.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the described purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') and do not explain their relevance to citation or to the stated functionality.
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 states a specific action (return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL) with a clear resource, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, which may have overlapping purposes.
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 only additional note ('Page content is not stored') is a behavioral statement, not usage direction.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs and can return overlapping fields, while compatibility is vaguely described. The remaining tools are mostly distinct, but the URL-related overlap could cause misselection.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern—e.g., inspect-robots and normalize-url are verb-first, while citation and utc-time are noun-like. Names such as cc-in and compatibility do not clearly signal their action.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, the mix of country, URL, time, and JSON utilities suggests a broader toolkit than the server name implies.
As a set of read-only metadata and validation helpers, it covers URL, HTTP, robots, time, JSON, and a single country lookup. The domain is not clearly defined, and only one country record is exposed, so some workflows may lack a matching tool.