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 the burden; it does disclose one meaningful behavior (query and fragment are dropped) and implies a read-only transformation. However, it does not explain what happens with the schema's host, json, and zone inputs, which are unrelated to the stated URL behavior.
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 short sentences with the key output behavior front-loaded and no filler. It loses one point because the concise framing omits the unexpected extra parameters, making the brevity slightly misleading.
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?
For a tool with four unrelated parameters and no output schema or annotations, two sentences are insufficient. The description answers what the tool returns for a URL but leaves the behavior of host, json, and zone completely unexplained.
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. It also creates ambiguity because three schema params (host, json, zone) seem disconnected from the described URL-normalization behavior.
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 names the specific operation (return origin, host, and path) and resource (URL), and adds behavior by noting query and fragment are dropped. It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not distinguish from sibling normalization tools.
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?
There is no statement about when to use this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only inference is 'use when you need URL components,' which is not enough guidance.
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.
The time-related tools (epoch-ms, utc-time, timezone, iana-zones) are distinguishable, but several URL tools overlap in input and output: citation and normalize-url both expose host/URL components, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. An agent could misselect between the URL inspection tools despite helpful descriptions.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: noun phrases like epoch-ms, utc-time, and status-catalog mix with imperative verbs like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. This inconsistency makes the naming style readable but unpredictable.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count on its own, but the set is not tightly scoped to the server's apparent identity of Unix epoch milliseconds; it mixes time, URL, robots, status code, and JSON utilities. This feels like a general utility grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.
For the time domain implied by the server name, there are no epoch-to-date conversions, formatting helpers, or timezone offset details, leaving obvious gaps. The URL/request utilities are similarly fragmentary, covering shape and status but not full content retrieval or more useful metadata, so the surface feels incomplete for any single stated purpose.