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?
There are no annotations and the description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, performs network requests, mutates state, or validates input. The phrase 'dropped' implies non-mutating behavior but is insufficient for full transparency.
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 itself is concise and to the point, but the schema introduces confusing and unrelated parameters that undermine the clarity of the tool definition as a whole.
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?
No output schema is provided, and the description gives only a vague list of returned fields ('origin, host, and path') without specifying types, formats, or error behavior. The mismatched input parameters also leave the overall contract incomplete.
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 parameter descriptions are almost entirely unhelpful and mismatched: 'host' is described only as 'Public hostname', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—none of which relate to the stated URL normalization purpose. Schema coverage is misleading because the schema does not actually document the parameters needed for the described operation.
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 action and result ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.'), but the input schema contains unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that contradict the stated purpose and obscure the tool's actual function.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., citation, validate-json, utc-time). The description only mentions behavior, not selection criteria or context.
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.
Some tools have overlapping concerns: citation and normalize-url both parse URLs and return host/scheme, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time. compatibility is also vague, making its relationship to the other tools unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphen separators and mostly use noun phrases, with a few verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, though the set covers a broad mix of URL, HTTP, time, and JSON utilities rather than a single focused domain.
The set covers common inspection tasks (URLs, robots.txt, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validity), but it lacks deeper operations like URL content retrieval, ISO duration conversion/parsing beyond shape, or more comprehensive HTTP status/request details.