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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention whether the URL must be HTTPS, what the exact return shape is, or whether other input parameters (host, json, zone) affect behavior. This is a minimal but honest disclosure.
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 zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the extra detail about dropped components is placed second. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format, but it only lists field names without structure. More importantly, the schema includes three unrelated optional parameters (host, json, zone) that the description does not explain or dismiss, leaving an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly. The description is incomplete for a tool with four input parameters.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and instead introduces potential confusion by mentioning 'host' as part of the return value while 'host' is also an input parameter. It also ignores the json and zone parameters entirely, so the description does not compensate for or clarify the multi-parameter schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), plus a behavioral qualifier ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect-robots and validate-json without needing to open their schemas.
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 its usage from the tool name and the fact that it normalizes URLs, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it mention any alternatives. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, so guidance is only implicit.
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.