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 explains the output format (origin, host, path) and the stripping behavior (query and fragment), which is transparent. However, the presence of unrelated parameters in the schema (host, json, zone) that are not mentioned in the description creates ambiguity about whether they are used or ignored, reducing overall behavioral transparency.
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, using a single sentence to convey the core behavior, output, and exclusions. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.
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 incomplete because it does not address the extra parameters in the schema. It fails to explain whether 'host', 'json', or 'zone' are accepted, ignored, or influence the output. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full contract.
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 defines four optional parameters, but the description only references 'URL' without clarifying which parameter corresponds to it. The other parameters (host, json, zone) are completely unexplained and seem unrelated to the described functionality. This severe mismatch makes parameter semantics nearly unusable for an agent.
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 action: it returns the origin, host, and path of a URL, and explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped. This is specific and directly tied to the tool name.
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 description implies URL-related use cases, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'timezone', leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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.