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 the main behavior (dropping query and fragment) but does not mention error handling, input validation, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, moderate transparency is provided.
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 front-loaded, with two short sentences that each convey essential information about the tool's behavior. No unnecessary words are present.
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 given the confusing parameter set. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what output to expect, or why unrelated parameters exist, making it insufficient for correct usage.
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 parameter descriptions are largely mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. Only 'url' relates to the described normalization behavior; 'host', 'json', and 'zone' appear unrelated and confusing, and no clarification is given about their roles.
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 specific function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, with explicit note that query and fragment are dropped. This is distinct and 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about appropriate scenarios or how it differs from sibling tools.
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 are distinct, but http-403 and status-catalog overlap for status-code lookups, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones form a related cluster. citation and normalize-url both expose host/origin info, so an agent could hesitate between them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-style names (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), and http-403 is a code rather than an action. The pattern is readable but not consistent.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is unfocused: URL utilities, HTTP status, time, and JSON validation are bundled together. For a server named 'HTTP 403 forbidden', it feels padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a general stateless utility server, common operations exist, but there are gaps: no timezone conversion, no URL query parsing, and status-code coverage is shallow. The domain is broad enough that completeness is hard to pin down.