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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes that page content is not stored, but does not disclose other potential side effects or behaviors (e.g., network calls, caching, or failure modes).
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 easy to read, but it omits mention of several parameters, making it structurally incomplete. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices necessary scope.
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 appears to have multiple unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the parameters interact with the stated purpose. The description is insufficient to understand how to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions, but they seem mismatched with the stated purpose (e.g., 'json' implies validation, 'zone' implies timezone). The main description does not explain how these parameters are used, making their semantics confusing.
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 it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, but it does not explain how the parameters 'json' and 'zone' relate to this purpose, leaving the tool's full scope unclear.
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 many sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone), and no alternative conditions are mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a distinct function: URL analysis, JSON inspection, time/timezone, and HTTP status. Only 'compatibility' is vaguely defined and could conceptually overlap with status-catalog, but the other descriptions prevent significant misselection.
Names mix noun-only (citation, compatibility), noun-noun (json-bytes, status-catalog), and verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) styles with no clear pattern. All are readable, but the convention is not systematic or predictable.
With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range. Each tool has a specific purpose, and the set does not feel bloated, even though the overall scope spans multiple utility domains.
URL, JSON, time, and HTTP status areas each have reasonable coverage with no obvious dead ends. However, the lack of a clearly stated central domain makes completeness hard to fully evaluate, and 'compatibility' feels under-specified.