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?
The description discloses that page content is not stored, but it does not explain the actual behavior regarding the parameters or any side effects; given no annotations, the transparency is limited.
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 concise and well-structured, with two clear sentences.
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 lacks details on the parameters' roles, output format, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
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 description does not elaborate on the parameters; the schema provides descriptions but they seem inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., json and zone), so the description adds no clarification.
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 host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific action and distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url.
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; it does not mention any conditions or comparisons.
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 operate on URLs (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, compatibility) with overlapping inputs but different outputs, and hour-utc vs utc-time are close in purpose. Descriptions mostly clarify the distinction, but an agent could easily select the wrong URL-analysis tool without deeper inspection.
Names mix single nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated compounds that alternate verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) and noun-first (status-catalog, domain-shape). No consistent verb_noun or action-object pattern is present.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable count range, but the set spans time, URL parsing, HTTP status, and JSON validation with no unifying scope. Several tools feel like a grab-bag rather than a focused server, so the count is not fully earned.
The time tools lack basic conversions or formatting options, and the URL tools have no clear workflow for fetching, parsing, and classifying content. For the apparent 'web/URL utilities plus time' scope, there are significant gaps that would force agents to work around missing functionality.