Skip to main content
Glama

HTTP 410 gone

normalize-url

Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds a concrete behavioral guarantee by noting that query and fragment are dropped. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose how the extra parameters are handled, whether the operation has side effects, or what happens on invalid input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler, and the key transformation behavior is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity leaves important schema-related questions unanswered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship of host, json, and zone to the operation, describe the return shape, or cover error/validation behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 even without additional parameter detail in the tool description. The description adds no parameter semantics, and schema labels like 'json' and 'zone' feel disconnected from the stated URL-normalization purpose, but they are at least minimally described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly says query and fragment are dropped. It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not address the unrelated schema parameters (host, json, zone) or compare with sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are no stated alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this tool and another.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.