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 mentions that query and fragment are dropped, giving some behavioral detail, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral implications.
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 very concise and to the point, with no superfluous language, but it omits important contextual information about parameter usage.
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 mismatch between the description (URL normalization) and the parameter list (including host, json, zone), the description lacks enough context for a user to understand how to call the tool correctly.
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 description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool's function. The schema descriptions are generic labels without meaningful detail, so parameter semantics are poorly conveyed.
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 returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment, which is a specific and unambiguous 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as citation or validate-json, leaving usage context ambiguous.
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.