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 adds some transparency by noting 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose what 'normalize or cite' means, whether the tool makes network requests (though it returns HTTP status, implying so), what happens with the 'json' or 'zone' parameters, or any side effects beyond not storing content. The behavioral traits are only partially covered.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, which is good. However, it omits crucial information about the other parameters, which means it is not just concise but under-specified. The single sentence earns its place but leaves significant gaps.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains only the URL-related behavior and completely ignores 'host', 'json', and 'zone', which are part of the input schema. An agent would not know what these parameters do or how to use them, and there is no return-format description either. The tool may work for the URL case but is inadequately specified for its full interface.
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 schema documents all four parameters with short descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, but since the schema already provides baseline descriptions, the score is at the baseline of 3. The gap is that the description does not explain how 'json', 'zone', and 'host' relate to the stated URL-citation 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 states a verb and resource ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') which is informative, but the tool name 'citation' and the presence of parameters like 'json' and 'zone' suggest a broader or different purpose than just URL checking. The description does not clarify what citing a URL means or how it relates to the additional parameters, making the tool's core function ambiguous.
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, and it does not mention the 'json' or 'zone' parameters at all. There is no stated context for when citation is appropriate, nor any exclusions or conditions under which a different tool should be used.
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 have distinct outputs, but there is real overlap: http-404 is a subset of status-catalog, timezone overlaps utc-time, and citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all parse URLs in slightly different ways. The descriptions clarify intended uses, so an agent can usually pick correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp.
Names are all lowercase kebab-case, which provides a surface-level consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: single nouns, noun-noun compounds, and imperative verb-noun forms. This makes the naming scheme less predictable than a uniform verb_noun or noun-based convention.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the set is not tightly scoped: URL/HTTP tools are mixed with timezone, JSON, and compatibility tools. A more focused HTTP utility server could easily justify fewer or more cohesive tools.
The inferred domain is URL/HTTP inspection, and the set covers normalization, status codes, and robots, but it lacks obvious related operations such as HTTP headers, redirects, or URL decoding. The presence of unrelated time and JSON tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than deliberately complete.