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?
Without annotations, the description carries a heavier burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped, and the output consists of origin, host, and path. However, it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what happens when non-URL parameters are supplied, leaving the tool's full behavior unclear.
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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core output, and the second states a key transformation. There is no wasted text. It could be considered too sparse given the four-parameter schema, but it earns the conciseness credit.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain enough about inputs, outputs, and behavior. It covers only the URL path and ignores the host, json, and zone parameters, leaving an agent unable to predict what a call using those parameters would do. This is a significant completeness gap.
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?
Because schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor value beyond the schema, such as clarifying that the URL is 'to normalize or cite' and that query/fragment are dropped. It does not explain how host, json, or zone relate to the described behavior.
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 concrete behavior: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and drop query/fragment. This is a specific verb plus resource. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that the description does not acknowledge, which slightly blurs the tool's overall purpose.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for when to pass each parameter, and no exclusions. The description implies a URL-normalization use case but never states how to choose between normalizing a URL, validating JSON, or passing a timezone, even though all are present in the schema.
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.