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 transparency burden and does disclose a key behavior: dropping query and fragment. However, it omits error handling, edge cases like invalid URLs, and potential side effects.
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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary wording, making it easy to parse.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks a return format or example and fails to reconcile the schema parameters (host, json, zone) with the URL-normalization purpose. An agent cannot confidently determine the correct arguments to pass.
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 schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) but their descriptions are inconsistent with the stated purpose; json and zone appear unrelated to URL normalization. The tool description adds no clarification for these parameters, leaving them highly ambiguous.
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 origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query/fragment, making the core purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or status-catalog.
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 alternatives. The only implicit hint is that query/fragment are dropped, but there is no explicit when/when-not 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct outputs: URL metadata, URL normalization, hostname labels, robots inspection, HTTP status catalog, time lookups, JSON validation, and hex encoding. The main ambiguity is between citation and normalize-url, which both return host/scheme information, and between timezone and utc-time, though the descriptions help clarify their different outputs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, giving a surface-level consistency. However, the set mixes nouns like citation and timezone, verb-object forms like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and the unusual hex-ok, so there is no consistent naming pattern.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the well-scoped range. The tools span URL, time, and data utility categories without feeling redundant, though the breadth suggests a general-purpose utility server rather than a tightly focused one.
The set covers common URL, time, and simple data-validation needs, but the overall domain is broad and somewhat unclear. Obvious companion operations are missing, such as hex decoding, timezone conversion, or more detailed request inspection beyond the vague compatibility tool.