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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped and that the tool returns origin, host, and path. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it does not address error handling or edge cases.
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 and front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. It consists of two short sentences that directly state what the tool does, with no unnecessary words or filler.
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 explains the core functionality but does not address the discrepancy with the input schema, which includes parameters unrelated to URL normalization. This leaves the context incomplete, as a user would be confused about why host, json, and zone are accepted. The lack of alignment between description and schema reduces completeness.
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 add meaningful context to the input schema. While it implies that 'url' is the main input, the schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that are not explained or reconciled with the tool's stated purpose. The description fails to clarify their relevance, leaving the parameter semantics unclear and inconsistent.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'). It also specifies that query and fragment are dropped, making it distinct from sibling tools like validate-json or timezone.
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 implies when to use this tool (when needing URL normalization), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The intended use is inferable from the name and description, but no direct guidance about when not to use it is provided.
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 has a distinct purpose (country code, URL manipulation, timezone, JSON validation, etc.) with no overlapping functionality, so there is no ambiguity in selecting the right tool.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are noun-only (e.g., 'cc-jp', 'iana-zones') while others are verb-noun (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'). The style is uniform but the grammar is mixed.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable, but the collection feels like a random assortment of utilities rather than a focused feature set, making the size slightly unjustified.
There is no coherent domain to evaluate completeness against. The tools span unrelated areas (ISO, HTTP, timezones, JSON, robots), so the set is incomplete for any single purpose and lacks a clear scope.