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?
The description discloses one behavioral aspect ('Page content is not stored'), but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or the actual behavior for the non-URL parameters. The mismatch between description and parameters further obscures transparency.
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 sentence, but it is not concise in conveying the tool's purpose because it omits crucial context about the parameters. The structure is minimal but fails to be 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?
Given the sibling tools, the description does not clarify how this tool fits into the broader set of operations (e.g., URL normalization, status cataloging, JSON validation). It lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
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?
While each parameter has a schema description, the tool description does not explain how 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The description actually conflicts with the parameter set, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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 verb ('return') and a resource ('URL'), but the parameters (host, json, zone) do not align with the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This mismatch makes the tool's actual function ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json). The description does not mention any alternative or condition for selection.
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 tools overlap in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time all relate to time. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog. Only a few tools have truly distinct, non-overlapping functions.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is a consistent visual style. However, the pattern is inconsistent: some are imperative verbs (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone, status-catalog). The names are readable but do not follow a predictable verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and falls within the typical well-scoped range. Some tools feel trivial or overlapping, such as lang-it and the multiple time-related tools, but the total is not excessive.
The tool set has no coherent unifying domain: it mixes URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and a language tag. Obvious operations like URL validation, timezone conversion, or HTTP status details are missing, and the grab-bag nature makes it impossible to assess complete lifecycle coverage.