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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful behavioral context, and implies the tool performs an HTTP fetch to determine status. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, whether the URL is fetched or merely parsed, or what happens on redirects or failures.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices contextual completeness for brevity.
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 tool has 4 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only mentions the URL's host/scheme/status. It does not clarify what 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters do at the tool level, what the return format is, or how the tool handles omissions. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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 the high-level purpose but does not explain how the four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to each other or when each should be provided. Since all parameters are optional and the schema descriptions are terse, some cross-parameter guidance would have elevated this score.
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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which clearly indicates what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-time, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, validate-json, or validate-time. The negative constraint 'Page content is not stored' weakly implies a privacy-safe choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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.
Several tools occupy overlapping URL/time territory: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all parse hostnames, while timezone and utc-time both give current time. The descriptions help distinguish them, but compatibility and hex-16 are vague enough that an agent could struggle to select them confidently.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun, while citation, compatibility, status-catalog, and timezone are noun-only. There is no predictable verb_noun scheme, but the readable kebab-case style prevents it from feeling chaotic.
11 tools is within the normal 3-15 range and the server covers several small utility subdomains. However, a few tools like hex-16 and compatibility feel tangential or underdeveloped, making the set slightly less cohesive than ideal.
The set covers a reasonable range of stateless web/request utilities: URL parsing, HTTP status, robots inspection, time, and JSON validation. Gaps exist, such as no way to inspect query parameters or request headers, and the time utilities feel disconnected from the URL-focused tools, so the overall surface is moderate rather than complete.