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 present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add one useful privacy-related note ('Page content is not stored'), which is creditworthy. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, what side effects occur for the json and zone parameters, whether authentication is required, or what happens on failure. For an unannotated tool with multiple inputs, this is a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary URL behavior is front-loaded, and the privacy note is a single extra sentence. It is appropriately concise, though the omission of json/zone context prevents a perfect score.
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 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only addresses URL-related behavior. It entirely omits the json and zone parameters, does not explain how these parameters combine, and offers no return-format details. The sibling-tool context increases the need for differentiation, so the description is incomplete for safe and 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 even with no additional parameter information in the description. The description does not clarify how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at 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 names a specific action ('return host, scheme, and HTTP status') and a resource ('for a URL'), which is clear as far as it goes. However, the input schema also includes 'json' and 'zone' parameters, and the sibling tools include normalize-url and validate-json, so the description omits a large part of the tool's apparent scope. It is not a tautology, but it is incomplete.
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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools normalize-url, coerce-url, or validate-json. The description does not mention these alternatives, does not state any exclusions, and gives no context for the JSON/timezone inputs. This leaves an agent with no basis for routing between closely related 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 cluster around related concerns: citation and normalize-url both work with URLs, and timezone/utc-time/iso-ordinal all deal with time. Descriptions are usually enough to tell them apart, but 'compatibility' is vague and could easily be confused with status-catalog or citation.
Names mix noun phrases like timezone and status-catalog with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hyphenated lowercase style is consistent, but there is no predictable verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is not an unreasonable number for a general utility server, but the set feels like a kitchen-sink collection rather than a focused toolkit. Given the server name 'ISO ordinal day', most of the tools are outside the apparent purpose.
There is no single coherent domain to assess, and each area is only thinly covered: URL tools lack encoding/decoding, time tools lack conversions between formats, and JSON support stops at validation. This makes the surface feel incomplete for almost any intended workflow.