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 discloses one useful behavioral trait: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not clarify behavior for the other parameters, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps.
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 short and front-loaded: it states the main behavior in the first sentence and the key transformation in the second. No filler words, though it is too narrow for the full parameter set.
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 four parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how all inputs contribute. It only covers `url`, leaving `host`, `json`, and `zone` unexplained, and fails to specify the return format beyond listing fields.
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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the tool description only adds semantics for the `url` parameter (dropping query/fragment). It fails to explain how `host`, `json`, and `zone` relate to the tool's stated purpose, so the description actually introduces confusion rather than compensating for schema gaps.
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 ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), making the core purpose clear. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (`json`, `zone`) that the description does not acknowledge, which muddies the overall purpose.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description implies it is for URL component extraction, but the presence of `json` and `zone` parameters without explanation leaves usage context ambiguous.
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.