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 key behavior: dropping query and fragment. However, with no annotations, it does not explain potential side effects, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether the operation is read-only. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.
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, dense sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.
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 is incomplete for an agent because the parameter list includes fields that are not explained by the description and appear irrelevant to URL normalization. The mismatch between the description and schema prevents an agent from understanding how to invoke the tool correctly, making it contextually incomplete.
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 mentions only the 'url' parameter, yet the schema includes 'host', 'json', and 'zone' with unrelated descriptions (e.g., JSON validation, timezone). There is a direct contradiction: the description says it returns 'host', but 'host' is an input parameter. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, and the schema itself is internally inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose.
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's function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb-resource pair with no ambiguity about its primary 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., validate-json, timezone). The description does not mention alternative tools or conditions under which this tool should be preferred, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.