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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful transparency note ('Page content is not stored'), but it does not mention that the tool performs a live HTTP fetch, potential side effects, latency, rate limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a network-calling tool.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the storage note is short but meaningful. Every word earns its place.
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 description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters including json and zone, which are not mentioned in the description at all. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left without an explanation of how those parameters fit or what the return format 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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how json and zone relate to the stated 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' purpose. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status') on a specific resource (a URL). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like normalize-url, which could plausibly return the same fields, so the purpose is clear but not fully disambiguated.
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 siblings such as normalize-url, validate-json, or format-time. An agent must infer usage from the terse description and parameter names, which is risky given the overlapping sibling names.
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 target clearly separate concerns, but citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs and can both return host/scheme information, which may create selection ambiguity. The time and status tools are distinct enough given their descriptions.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which is readable, but the set mixes verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation and status-catalog, plus odd constants like lang-en. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, though several are single-purpose constants such as lang-en and utc-time that add some bulk. The count is not excessive or too thin.
The domain appears to be privacy-preserving read-only helpers, and it covers basic URL, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation needs. However, there are notable gaps like timezone conversion, HTTP status details beyond a catalog, and the opaque compatibility and lang-en tools do not form a clear workflow.