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?
The description explicitly states that page content is not stored, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure about data retention. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, such as whether the tool fetches the URL, performs network requests, or has any caching behavior. Still, the note about non-storage goes beyond the minimal and adds meaningful transparency.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core function and a key behavioral note without any fluff or redundancy. The structure is clean and easily parseable, making it an exemplary model of brevity.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary output and a notable behavioral aspect. However, it lacks any mention of integration with sibling tools or typical use cases, which would have made it fully self-contained. Still, for a tool of this scope, the description is sufficient.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with 100% coverage. While the tool description does not explain any parameter directly, the schema itself already carries the semantic load. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high, even if the description adds no extra parameter meaning.
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 the tool's function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific and uses a precise verb ('Return'), making the purpose unambiguous. The additional note about not storing page content further clarifies behavior.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, status-catalog, or validate-json. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferable. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer when citation is appropriate.
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 citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs with overlapping fields, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones are related. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is minimal.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens, following a consistent pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, utc-time). No mixed conventions or irregular verbs.
With 11 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool appears to serve a distinct utility, and the number is reasonable for a general-purpose toolkit.
The tools form a disjointed collection of unrelated utilities (URLs, time, HTTP, JSON, robots, language tag) with no coherent domain. There is no obvious lifecycle or CRUD pattern, and the set lacks depth in any single area, making it incomplete for any defined purpose.