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 behavioral disclosure burden, and it only offers one behavioral trait: 'Page content is not stored.' It does not disclose network effects, redirect/error handling, rate limits, or what happens to the json and zone inputs, which is a significant gap for a tool that appears to bundle multiple behaviors.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, but its brevity leaves the json and zone behaviors unexplained, so it is efficient rather than complete.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description only promises host, scheme, and HTTP status while the schema lists four parameters including json and zone. The sibling tool names (normalize-url, validate-json, validate-timezone, check-robots, etc.) reveal that this is likely a multi-behavior tool, and the description fails to cover those paths or the different return shapes an agent would need.
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 minimal meaning beyond the schema, except that 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status' clarifies what 'normalize or cite' produces for the url parameter; json, host, and zone receive no additional semantic explanation.
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 clear action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') with a specific resource. However, the tool name 'citation' and the input schema's json and zone parameters suggest additional behaviors (JSON validation, timezone checks) that the description never mentions, so its purpose is only partially disclosed.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to supply json vs url vs zone. The phrase 'normalize or cite' in the schema hints at intent, but the description itself provides no decision context for an agent.
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: citation and normalize-url both decompose URLs into host/scheme, http-200 is a single-code subset of status-catalog, and timezone/utc-time both give current time. compatibility is too vague to position relative to the others, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the style mixes nouns (status-catalog, timezone), verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and code-like labels (http-200). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the naming remains readable.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a web/HTTP utility server. However, a few tools could be consolidated (http-200 into status-catalog, utc-time into timezone), so the count is slightly higher than needed but not excessive.
The set covers common status-code lookup, URL parsing, robots.txt inspection, JSON validation, and time retrieval, but it lacks natural complements such as timezone conversion, header inspection, or URL construction. These gaps are workable, but they make the surface feel incomplete for a general HTTP/URL utility tool.