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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns only origin/host/path and deliberately drops query and fragment components. However, it does not disclose error behavior, requirements on the URL, or what happens when the other parameters are provided, so transparency is partial.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior and immediately followed by the key transformation detail. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted phrasing.
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?
Despite the schema documenting each parameter, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It only explains URL normalization and ignores the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' modes entirely, so an agent could easily miss alternative valid invocations or misuse 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'url' parameter by clarifying the normalization behavior, but it does not explain how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the stated purpose, leaving the multi-mode nature of the tool ambiguous.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('URL'), and scope ('origin, host, and path') while also noting that query and fragment are dropped. It does not name or differentiate against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5, but the core behavior is unambiguous.
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?
The use case is implied: use this tool when you need the origin, host, and path of a URL with query/fragment removed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the decision.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all dissect URLs/hostnames, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status reporting. compatibility is too vague to disambiguate, so an agent could easily pick the wrong URL-analysis tool.
All names are lowercase and hyphen-separated, which is readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun while citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog are nouns. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'JSON Check' only validate-json is on-topic. The remaining nine are unrelated URL, HTTP, and time utilities, making the toolset feel like a grab bag rather than a scoped set.
As a JSON-checking server it is severely incomplete: only a boolean validity check is offered, with no schema validation, formatting, or JSON-path operations. As a general URL/HTTP utility it also lacks HTTP body access, redirect handling, and timezone conversion, so common workflows will hit dead ends.