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 disclosure burden. It only adds the privacy note that page content is not stored; it does not say whether the tool makes a live network request, handles redirects, caches results, or fails on non-HTTPS URLs. The behavior of the json and zone inputs is entirely undisclosed.
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 two sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary function followed by a relevant privacy disclaimer. Every word earns its place, though the omission of other parameters is a completeness concern scored elsewhere.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how url, host, json, and zone relate, whether they are alternatives or combinations, or what the exact return format is. The description covers only the url-input case.
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 schema already documents all four parameters with reasonable descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 function: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like normalize-url or http-status, and the schema includes json and zone parameters that the description never mentions, creating ambiguity about the full scope.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any conditions, exclusions, or context for invocation.
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 have distinct purposes, but URL-related tools like citation and normalize-url and time tools like timezone and utc-time occupy adjacent territory. Descriptions are clear enough that an agent can usually select correctly.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which provides a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone), verb-style names (normalize-url, validate-json), and abbreviation-style names (km-to-mi), so there is no uniform verb_noun convention.
A server named 'Kilometers to miles' having 11 tools is excessive, since only km-to-mi relates to the stated purpose. The count could work for a general utility server, but it does not fit the apparent conversion-focused scope.
As a unit conversion service, the server is severely incomplete: it only supports kilometers-to-miles and lacks the reverse conversion or other conversions. As a utility collection, the tools are unrelated and form no coherent domain whose completeness can be judged.