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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' However, it does not describe error handling, URL format requirements, or the effect of passing host/json/zone alongside url.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a precise detail about query/fragment handling.
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 tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry significant context. It does not explain why host/json/zone exist, how the output is structured, or what happens on invalid URLs, leaving an agent uncertain about correct invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning for the url parameter by defining the normalization behavior, but it does not clarify how host, json, or zone relate to the operation and uses 'host' as an output concept rather than an input parameter.
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 specific operation and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It is not a tautology and clearly describes URL normalization behavior. However, it does not clarify the exact output representation (single string vs. separate fields) or acknowledge that the input schema includes unrelated optional parameters.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation name and text, and no mention is made of the non-URL parameters in the schema.
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 target distinct concerns: timezone lookups, URL normalization, JSON validation, and robots.txt inspection are clearly separate. The only real overlap is citation vs. normalize-url, both of which extract host/scheme info from a URL, and iana-zones vs. timezone vs. utc-time could be slightly confusing in a timezone context.
All names use lowercase hyphenated style, which is readable, but they mix noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-led phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count, but the set is not well-scoped to the server's stated IANA Zones identity. Only three tools clearly relate to timezones, while the rest cover unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities, making the count feel padded rather than purpose-built.
For a timezone-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it offers common names, current time, and UTC, but no comprehensive zone list, offset information, or timezone conversion. The URL and JSON helpers are similarly one-off utilities with no broader workflow coverage, leaving notable gaps in the apparent domain.