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 core behavior — returning origin, host, path and dropping query/fragment. Since no annotations are present, this description carries the full burden, and it does so clearly, though it does not explicitly address side effects or non-destructive behavior.
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, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the function and output. There is no unnecessary verbosity or fluff.
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 fails to explain the presence of the mismatched parameters in the schema (host, json, zone), creating confusion about the tool's actual inputs. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently use the tool correctly.
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 does not mention any parameters, and the schema's parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., host, json, zone are unrelated to URL normalization). This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance on how to construct a correct invocation.
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 purpose: to return origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is a specific, unambiguous verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the function described.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: URL parsing, HTTP status codes, timezone handling, JSON validation, and robots.txt fetching. Even overlapping areas like URL tools focus on different aspects (origin/path vs. host/scheme vs. domain labels).
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No camelCase, underscores, or mixed styles, making the naming pattern predictable and uniform.
With 11 tools, the set sits within the typical 3-15 range. The domain is a mix of unrelated utilities (URL, time, JSON, HTTP), which feels slightly unfocused but not excessive.
The tools cover common operations for their respective areas: URL parsing, time/UTC, JSON validation, and HTTP status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no URL encoding/decoding or generic HTTP request tool), but the current set is reasonably comprehensive for its stated purposes.