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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it fails to explain behavior regarding the other schema parameters (host, json, zone), error handling, input validation, or output format. The description is silent on these, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a key detail (dropping query and fragment). This is an efficient use of text.
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 4 parameters but no output schema, so the description must explain the full behavior. It only addresses the 'url' parameter and the output components, but leaves the other parameters unexplained. There is no mention of return format, error cases, or how the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters might affect behavior. This is incomplete for a tool with such a broad schema.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by specifying the output components (origin, host, path). However, it does not clarify the purpose of the other parameters (host, json, zone), which are unrelated to URL normalization. The description does not compensate for this ambiguity, so it stays at the baseline.
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: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This is specific and distinguishes it from general URL utilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation' or 'compatibility', so it loses a point for lacking direct sibling distinction.
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 alternatives. It neither mentions specific use cases, prerequisites, nor exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it is for URL normalization, but there is no explicit routing to the correct tool based on context.
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.
Several URL-centered tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) and time tools (timezone, utc-time) overlap in input type and could be confused, though their output purposes are mostly distinct. The vague 'compatibility' tool lacks a clear boundary, and 'lang-hi' seems unrelated to the rest.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual pattern, but the grammatical style is mixed: some are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), some nouns (citation, timezone), and some are opaque (compatibility, lang-hi). It is readable but not a clean verb_noun convention.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a utility server and not bloated. However, a few tools feel like one-offs or constants (lang-hi, iana-zones), so the set does not feel perfectly curated.
The tool surface is a grab bag of URL, HTTP status, robots, time, JSON, and language utilities, so there is no coherent domain to complete. For a web/URL toolkit, obvious operations like header inspection, content fetch, or DNS/WHOIS are missing; for a language server, only a tag constant is present.