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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that page content is not stored, and omits expected behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched, redirect handling, error behavior, or HTTPS enforcement. The schema's unrelated params (json, zone) suggest unadvertised behaviors.
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?
Exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence is a meaningful behavioral note. Every word earns its place despite being under-specified overall.
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 tool with 4 loosely related parameters, 9 siblings, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains only the URL behavior, leaves json and zone unexplained in context, and lists host as an output while the schema defines it as an input, creating ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about host, json, or zone semantics; it only notes that URL content is not stored, which marginally supplements the url parameter's meaning.
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?
'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the core action and outputs. However, it does not differentiate this tool from overlapping siblings like normalize-url and status-catalog, which an agent would need disambiguated.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With nine siblings including normalize-url and status-catalog that closely overlap this tool's stated purpose, the agent is left to guess which tool to invoke.
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 timezone/utc-time both return current time and citation/normalize-url both inspect URL components. Compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog, though descriptions provide some help.
All tool names use lowercase-hyphenated style, but they mix noun labels (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-object actions (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). This mixed semantic pattern makes naming less predictable despite the consistent formatting.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but a server titled 'Leap year check' carries only one leap-year tool among unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is a major scope mismatch for the stated purpose.
The set lacks a coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess: for a leap-year server there is only the bare check, and as a general utility server there are obvious omissions like date arithmetic or more detailed HTTP capabilities. Agents would hit dead ends beyond the narrow included functions.