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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that page content is not stored, which is relevant for a URL-checking tool. However, it remains silent on key behaviors: what happens with invalid URLs, whether the URL is normalized, why `json` and `zone` are accepted, and what the exact response format is.
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 zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the non-storage disclosure earns its place as a meaningful caveat. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains only the URL-related behavior and leaves the role of the other three parameters unexplained. An agent cannot confidently predict the return value or know how `json` and `zone` affect the call.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it only mentions URL, while `host`, `json`, and `zone` are left entirely to their schema descriptions.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It is unambiguous about what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools or explain why the tool also accepts `json` and `zone` parameters, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what it returns; there are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
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.
Several tools operate on URLs and overlap in scope: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all accept URL-related input and return overlapping metadata. The compatibility tool is too vague to distinguish from the others, and timezone/utc-time are similarly close.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style, which is readable and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun-based (citation, timezone, status-catalog).
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. Still, the server feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a focused toolkit, so the count is reasonable but not ideal.
The tool surface covers several URL, HTTP, time, and validation basics, but there is no clear overall domain tying them together. Notable gaps exist depending on intent: no DNS, header inspection, or meaningful ISBN validation beyond digit shape; the server name suggests a much narrower focus than what is provided.