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 an important behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden, but it does not discuss error handling, URL validation, or output format details. The disclosed behavior is useful but incomplete.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and key output. No filler or redundant phrasing. It earns its place efficiently.
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 and no output schema. It describes only URL normalization, leaving the other schema parameters unexplained and creating an ambiguous relationship with the described behavior. The omission of how to interpret the mismatched schema makes this definition insufficient.
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 each parameter has a schema description. The tool description adds no meaning about parameters beyond that, and it only implicitly addresses the 'url' parameter. It does not explain how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the described behavior, which is confusing.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and even notes that query and fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the purpose is unambiguous.
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 like validate-json or timezone. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The context is sparse, leaving usage entirely to inference.
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 overlap in the URL/HTTP space, especially citation and normalize-url both returning host/scheme information, with inspect-robots and status-catalog adding to the confusion. The timezone tools are distinct, but compatibility is too vague to place, and the overall set makes tool selection ambiguous.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-object commands like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are bare nouns like citation and timezone, or noun phrases like status-catalog and iana-zones. There is no consistent verb_noun convention or recognizable family pattern.
For a server advertised as 'Hex color to RGB,' 11 tools is far more than needed, and only hex-rgb actually matches that purpose. While 11 is not an extreme number in general, the unrelated utilities make the server feel bloated and mis-scoped.
The set has no coherent domain to assess against, spanning URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, robots.txt, and color conversion without covering any one area deeply. For the stated hex-to-RGB purpose it is technically complete, but for the apparent mixed utility scope there are clear gaps such as timezone conversion or URL encoding.