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 and no mention of side effects, permissions, or side-effect-free behavior, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It is implied to be a read-only operation, but this is not stated.
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, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 is complete for the core URL normalization task, but it does not address the other parameters or describe the output structure. In the absence of an output schema, some context about the return format or parameter usage would improve completeness.
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 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for the 'url' parameter (dropping query/fragment), but does not clarify how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the tool's purpose, even though they have schema descriptions.
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 primary function: returning origin, host, and path from a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is specific and unambiguous.
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. While the sibling tools are not direct substitutes, the description lacks explicit context or scenarios for its application.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'citation' and 'normalize-url' overlap in parsing URLs and returning host/scheme details, while 'compatibility' is vaguely described. Overall, the boundaries are mostly clear.
Names are consistently lowercase and hyphenated, but mix noun-style names ('timezone', 'citation') with verb-style names ('inspect', 'normalize', 'validate'). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making the naming style inconsistent.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a utility-focused server and within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect, though some could be consolidated.
The set covers URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, robots.txt, language tags, and JSON validation, but lacks broader web-development utilities like DNS lookups or header inspection. The domain is not fully defined, so some gaps are possible.