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?
Discloses that query and fragment are dropped and indicates the returned fields. However, there is no mention of validation behavior, error cases, or whether any state change occurs.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core output and behavior. It could be slightly expanded to clarify the unrelated parameters, but it is not redundant.
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 gives basic output behavior but lacks an output schema, parameter rationale, and usage context. Given sibling tools, the absence of selection criteria makes the context incomplete.
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?
Only the url parameter aligns with the described behavior. The host parameter appears to be an output field rather than an input, and json and zone are unrelated to URL normalization, with no clarification provided.
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?
Clearly states the action (return origin, host, and path) and the resource (a URL). It is distinct from sibling tools, though the url parameter description's wording 'normalize or cite' introduces slight ambiguity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json or iana-zones. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague and 'citation' vs 'normalize-url' both deal with URLs, though with different purposes. Overall, descriptions help clarify intent.
Names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json) with a few single-word exceptions like 'citation' and 'timezone'. The style is predictable and readable.
11 tools is well within the typical range for a general-purpose utility server, covering URL, time, HTTP status, JSON, and language helpers without being excessive.
The tool set covers a broad range of common web and time utilities. Minor gaps like DNS lookup or IP info exist, but for the apparent scope, the coverage is solid.