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 does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful behavioral transparency. But with no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and fails to mention what happens with invalid URLs, whether any network request is made, or what behavior is expected when 'json' or 'zone' are supplied. The behavioral scope of the tool is only partially disclosed.
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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core behavior directly without redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the URL normalization aspect, though it omits other functionality.
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, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should supply enough context for correct invocation. It provides contextual detail only for the 'url' parameter, leaving the purposes and behaviors for 'host', 'json', and 'zone' unexplained. The schema's parameter descriptions help but do not compensate for the missing overall tool contract.
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 each parameter has its own description in the schema. The main description adds little beyond that except for clarifying the output focus on origin, host, and path. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters or how 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to URL normalization.
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 verb ('Return') and resource (URL), and clearly explains the normalization behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it only covers the 'url' parameter, while the schema also includes unrelated parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' that the description does not account for. An agent cannot determine the tool's full scope from this description.
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 alternatives, and the description does not mention any of the sibling tools like validate-json or timezone-related tools. It also does not explain how the 'host', 'json', or 'zone' parameters should be used if they are provided, leaving usage entirely to inference.
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 are individually distinct, but there are overlapping clusters: citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all inspect URLs, and iana-zones/timezone/utc-time/iso-week all deal with time. The descriptions help separate them, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some hyphenated noun phrases (domain-shape, status-catalog), and some are verb-object commands (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is not well-scoped: the 'ISO week number' label covers only one of these tools, and the rest are a collection of unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. It feels like a grab bag rather than a focused server.
There is no coherent domain to assess against. The ISO week number tool stands alone with no date-input or conversion companions, and the URL/time/JSON tools cover only narrow slices of their respective domains. Obvious gaps exist in nearly every cluster.