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?
The description mentions one behavioral aspect (query and fragment are dropped) but does not disclose other potential effects such as side effects, errors, or permissions. With no annotations, this minimal information leaves much unspecified.
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 extremely concise, using one sentence to convey the core functionality. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 due to the mismatch between the tool's purpose and the parameter list. It does not explain the role of host, json, or zone, leaving the tool's actual behavior unclear.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are largely inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. 'json' and 'zone' have descriptions irrelevant to URL normalization, and 'host' is ambiguous. The description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's function.
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: to return origin, host, and path from a URL while dropping query and fragment. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it is appropriate to call it.
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.