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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like whether the URL is fetched live, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior, so coverage is partial.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy note is concise. Efficient and well-structured.
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 incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It explains only the URL behavior but leaves host, json, and zone unexplained, creating ambiguity about their purpose. With no output schema, the description should clarify all parameters and return values, which it fails to do.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the URL-related outputs, not the roles of host, json, or zone parameters, which remain unexplained.
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 returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, though the combination of three outputs is somewhat distinctive.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
Tools are individually distinct in their operations, but the mix of URL, timezone, JSON, and temperature topics creates confusion about which tool applies to a given task. Names like 'compatibility' and 'citation' are vague and could be misinterpreted.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use hyphenated lower-case (f-to-c, iana-zones), others use single words (citation, timezone), and some use multi-word phrases (normalize-url, validate-json). This lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.
At 11 tools, the count is within the typical range, but it feels excessive for a server ostensibly dedicated to Fahrenheit-to-Celsius conversion. The number is inflated by unrelated utilities, making the set poorly scoped for the stated purpose.
For a Fahrenheit-to-Celsius converter, there is only one relevant tool (f-to-c). Essential operations like Celsius-to-Fahrenheit, Kelvin conversions, or batch conversions are missing, so the domain coverage is severely incomplete.