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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does note that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy guarantee. However, it omits that the tool also validates JSON or handles timezones, and it does not clarify whether the tool makes network requests or returns status codes only. The description covers only a fraction of the behavior.
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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action. However, it is too brief to cover the tool's multi-purpose nature, so it is more under-specification than proper conciseness.
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 and no output schema, and the description does not explain how the parameters interact or when to use each. It also does not mention return values beyond host, scheme, and status. Given the added complexity of json and zone, the description is clearly incomplete for an agent to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description, however, does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, and it completely ignores the 'json' and 'zone' parameters, leaving their role unexplained. An agent reading the description would not know why those parameters exist or how they relate to the stated function.
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 specific function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a clear verb+resource. However, the input schema includes parameters like 'json' and 'zone' that are not mentioned at all, making the actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, though the core function is somewhat distinct.
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 versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it specify conditions for using the json or zone parameters. An agent would have to infer the intended use from the schema alone.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between URL-related tools (citation vs normalize-url) and time-related tools (timezone vs utc-time). Overall, the descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
The naming is inconsistent: some tools are nouns (citation, timezone, status-catalog), some are verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and one is an abbreviated pair (lang-fr). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the verb/noun mix makes the set feel incoherent.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool adds a distinct capability. It is not overly large, though some tools feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities.
The tools cover a variety of network, time, and data-validation utilities, but the scope is unclear. Given the server name 'Language fr', there is very little language-specific functionality beyond lang-fr, so the completeness relative to the implied domain is limited.