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 discloses the core behavior—what is returned and what is dropped. Since there are no annotations, this provides essential transparency. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, empty input) or whether the tool has side effects (unlikely for a 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 effectively communicates the primary function without unnecessary words.
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 sufficient for the primary operation, but it does not explain the role of the extra parameters (host, json, zone) or how they affect the output. Given the schema includes four parameters, the description leaves significant ambiguity about the full behavior and expected usage context.
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 parameter descriptions are generic and partially mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is plausible, but 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') that seem irrelevant to URL normalization. The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters interact with the tool's behavior.
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 function: returning origin, host, and path from a URL, and dropping query and fragment. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or timezone. While the name and behavior imply URL processing, there is no direct guidance on selection criteria.
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.