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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the return value and the dropping of query/fragment, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if validation occurs, what happens on invalid input, or how the additional parameters (host, json, zone) affect behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about dropped components is concise and informative.
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 four parameters but the description addresses only one. There is no output schema, so the description should at least clarify how the different parameters relate and what happens when multiple are supplied. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's contract from this description alone.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'url' parameter by explaining normalization behavior, but it completely ignores the other three parameters (host, json, zone), creating confusion about whether they are part of the same operation or separate modes. The schema provides descriptions, but the tool description should coordinate them.
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 verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and adds the behavior of dropping query and fragment. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like validate-json or other sibling tools. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the use case without any exclusions, prerequisites, or routing logic.
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.