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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior: 'Page content is not stored,' which is a genuine privacy/retention trait. However, it does not state whether the tool makes network requests, what side effects might occur, or what the return payload looks like beyond the stated fields.
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 with zero filler. The most important output information is front-loaded, and the privacy caveat is a valuable second sentence. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description covers only the URL-citation path. The tool accepts four unrelated parameter types (URL, host, JSON, timezone), yet the description gives no hint of how they combine or when each is expected. An agent could not correctly invoke this tool for the json or zone parameters based on this definition.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description only explains behavior for the 'url' parameter. The 'json' and 'zone' parameters relate to validation/timezone checking, which are completely unaddressed by the description. This disconnect makes the description actively unhelpful for three of the four parameters, dropping the score below 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It names the specific outputs, so the agent knows what to expect. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the 'Page content is not stored' caveat, which hints at the citation use case.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The 'Page content is not stored' sentence implies a lightweight citation use case but never names alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings. The agent is left to infer applicability from the URL-oriented verb phrase alone.
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.
json-ok and validate-json are effectively duplicate JSON validity checks, and several URL/HTTP tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) have overlapping hostname/status concerns. compatibility is too vague to distinguish reliably from the other HTTP-related tools.
The names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, timezone), imperative verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and adjective constructions (json-ok). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, and the same JSON operation is called two different names.
Eleven tools is not inherently too large, but the set is not tightly scoped to the apparent 'JSON validity' purpose and bundles URL, robots, HTTP, and time utilities. The duplicate JSON validation tools also make the count feel padded rather than earning their places.
There are useful clusters for URL inspection, HTTP status, time, and JSON validity, but no clear workflow connects them and compatibility remains unexplained. Within a broad safe-web/utility interpretation the basics are present, yet obvious helpers such as header inspection or a single unified JSON validator are missing.