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 note 'Page content is not stored' discloses a behavioral guarantee. Since no annotations are provided, this statement adds transparency about side effects, though it does not mention other potential behaviors like network requests.
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, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and additional behavior in a second short sentence. No unnecessary detail is 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 explains only the URL-related functionality, leaving the roles of 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters unaddressed in the tool's overall context. The schema descriptions individually explain them, but the tool's description does not tie them together, causing ambiguity about the full scope.
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 schema descriptions cover all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with meaningful text, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline.
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 returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like normalize-url and status-catalog by its explicit output.
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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or status-catalog. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.