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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee ('Page content is not stored') and states the output fields. However, it does not disclose whether a network request is made, error behavior, redirect handling, or how the json and zone inputs are processed.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the privacy note earns its place by adding useful behavioral context.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide complete context, but it only covers the URL path. The json and zone parameters are entirely absent from the description, and the relationship to sibling tools like validate-json and timezone is unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about the full scope of the tool.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and does not mention json or zone, but the schema already documents each property adequately.
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 verb ('Return') and names concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, and it ignores the json/zone parameters, so it is not a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, and validate-json exist, but the description never explains when citation should be chosen over them or when it should not be used.
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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both analyzing URLs, and 'compatibility' and 'status-catalog' both dealing with HTTP statuses. However, each has a distinct focus (scheme/status vs. origin/path; classification vs. catalog), so they are not fully redundant.
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case pattern with clear verb-noun or noun-only structures (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'inspect-robots', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
With 11 tools, the set is well-sized for a utility collection covering URL, HTTP, JSON, time, and language functions. It is within the typical 3-15 range and does not feel bloated or sparse.
The tools cover a diverse set of standalone web/REST utilities, but there is no cohesive domain or lifecycle (e.g., no CRUD operations, no clear workflow). Some areas could be missing (e.g., DNS lookup, header inspection), but each tool is self-contained for its stated purpose.