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 key behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. Given no annotations exist, this helps the agent understand side effects.
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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's behavior.
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?
For a simple tool, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and its output. The schema covers parameters, though the mismatch between the description and extra parameters (host, json, zone) could cause slight confusion, so a small deduction is applied.
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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, but the schema coverage is full.
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 returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly mentions dropping query and fragment. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions.
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.