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 note that page content is not stored is a useful privacy hint, but the description does not disclose side effects such as network requests, caching, error behavior, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the behavioral transparency is limited.
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 the two sentences are easy to scan. However, the brevity sacrifices important clarity about the parameters and the relationship to sibling tools.
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 simple stated purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to know how to correctly supply parameters or interpret results. The sibling tool list provides context, but the description does not leverage it to distinguish this tool's role.
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 descriptions are mostly tautological and do not clarify how each parameter is used by this specific tool. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', while 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status.
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 the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which identifies a core purpose. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) and overlap with sibling tools such as normalize-url and status-catalog makes the exact purpose 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 alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any selection criteria or context that would help an agent choose this tool.
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 overlap in purpose: 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both process URLs, while 'timezone' and 'utc-time' both return time-related data. The distinction between 'domain-shape' and 'normalize-url' is also unclear without deeper inspection.
Names mix single words (citation, compatibility, timezone) and hyphenated compounds (domain-shape, normalize-url, validate-json). Some names are vague and not action-oriented (e.g., 'citation', 'compatibility'), and 'lang-ru' is narrowly scoped without a pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls within the acceptable 3-15 range and does not feel excessive. The number is reasonable for a utilities server, though a couple of tools could be merged without loss of clarity.
The set covers several web-related utilities (URLs, status codes, time, JSON, robots), but the domain is not clearly defined and lacks common counterparts (e.g., encoding/decoding, hashing). The inclusion of a single language tag tool ('lang-ru') suggests a narrow or arbitrary scope.