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 transparently discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that the result contains origin, host, and path. However, with no annotations, it does not cover behavior for the other parameters, invalid URLs, rejected inputs, or the exact return shape, leaving some important behavior undocumented.
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 deliver the core purpose and the most important transformation rule with no filler. Each sentence earns its place and the key output is front-loaded.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too narrow: it only explains URL normalization and leaves other parameters and invocation modes unexplained. An agent cannot confidently determine what happens when json, host, or zone is provided, or what a valid call looks like.
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 meaning to the url parameter by saying it is normalized into origin/host/path. But it adds no semantic clarity for host, json, or zone, which the schema describes but the description never connects to the tool's purpose.
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 verb and resource: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly drops query and fragment. This is specific enough to separate it from generic 'normalize URL' wording, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tools.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-document-metadata or parse-date. It also does not explain how the unrelated optional parameters (host, json, zone) should be used or whether they represent alternative modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.