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 explicitly states the behavior: it returns three components (origin, host, path) and drops query and fragment. This is transparent about the operation's effect. No side effects or hidden behaviors are mentioned, but none are apparent for a URL normalization function.
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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 given the provided schema. It covers only the 'url' parameter and fails to explain the purpose of 'host', 'json', and 'zone', which appear in the input schema. This leaves significant contextual gaps that an agent would need to resolve before invoking 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 schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the description only references 'url' and even implies 'host' is an output, not an input. The parameters 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to URL normalization and have descriptions that suggest they belong to completely different tools. The description does nothing to clarify the role of these extra parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unclear.
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 purpose: to return origin, host, and path for a URL, and to drop query and fragment. This is a specific verb-noun-resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies the tool is for URL normalization, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'citation' or 'validate-json'. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough to infer typical usage.
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 (URL inspection, time, status codes, JSON validation), but citation and normalize-url both deal with URL parts and could cause confusion. compatibility is also somewhat vague, though it appears to classify requests differently.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens (e.g., domain-shape, utc-time, validate-json), forming a consistent and predictable pattern across the entire set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server lacks a unified focus—it's a grab bag of utilities. While not excessive, the count feels high for the apparent scope, which is unclear and fragmented.
There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against. The server is labeled 'Language es' but only one tool (lang-es) relates to language, leaving many potential gaps. For a general utility server, it's missing obvious pairs like URL fetching or timezone listing beyond common names.