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 trait: 'Page content is not stored.' This is useful privacy/side-effect context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing other behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched, whether requests are rate-limited, whether auth is needed, or how errors are surfaced. The given trait alone is insufficient for a network-touching tool.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The privacy note ('Page content is not stored') is directly relevant and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 too thin for a tool with 4 heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters (url, host, json, zone), how to validate JSON, what the HTTP status means, or what the tool returns. The description would not allow an agent to confidently construct a correct call.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why 'json' or 'zone' belong in a citation tool, but because the schema already documents each field, the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), so it does communicate core behavior. However, the title is 'citation' and the description does not explain what 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' have to do with citing, nor does it distinguish this from a generic URL checker. It is not a pure tautology, but it is ambiguous about the actual purpose of a 'citation' tool.
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 on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description implies it is for fetching URL metadata, but it does not state when an agent should choose citation over the alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing 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.
Several tools overlap around URL inspection (citation vs normalize-url) and time (timezone vs utc-time), though their descriptions clarify differing outputs. The vague compatibility tool adds some ambiguity about when it should be selected.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent style, but the pattern mixes noun phrases like citation and timezone with verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. This is readable but does not follow one predictable convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable size for this collection of privacy-preserving utility functions. The count is not bloated, though the time-related tools could arguably be consolidated.
The tool surface covers the apparent domain of inspecting data shapes without retaining content: URLs, email, JSON, robots.txt, time, and HTTP status. Minor gaps like direct header or DNS inspection exist, but common workflows are not dead-ended.