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 a key behavioral detail: query and fragment are dropped from the URL. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like beyond the three components, or whether there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this is the only transparency available.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential behavior without any filler. It is highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
While the description clearly explains the output for a URL input, it leaves the presence of the other three parameters ('host', 'json', 'zone') unexplained. This mismatch makes the overall context incomplete, as an agent cannot determine whether these parameters are required or how they affect normalization.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema lists 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' with descriptions that seem unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., 'json' for validation, 'zone' for timezone). The description fails to clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
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: return origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is a specific verb-resource pairing, making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'url' input parameter, leaving a slight gap.
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 neither names alternatives nor provides selection criteria, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.
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.