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?
The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but with no annotations it carries the full burden. It gives no detail about the three other parameters' effects, the return format, side effects, or errors, and the schema's inclusion of unrelated parameters is unexplained.
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 appropriately short and front-loads the main result. The second sentence serves a purpose by describing query/fragment handling. It earns a high conciseness score, though the brevity contributes to overall incompleteness.
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?
With four parameters and no output schema, the description should cover how each parameter influences behavior. It leaves the json and zone inputs entirely unexplained in context, and gives no return shape or error conditions, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool for anything beyond a trivial URL string.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description only elaborates on the URL-related behavior. It does not explain how the host, json, and zone parameters relate to the stated normalization purpose, leaving their roles confusing despite the one-line 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 says 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL', which is a specific verb and resource, so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not reconcile with the schema, which accepts JSON and timezone parameters, making the tool's overall purpose ambiguous and 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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone-related tools), nor does it describe the conditions under which the json or zone parameters should be supplied.
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.