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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does add one useful fact: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether a network request is made per URL, whether rate limits apply, or how failures are surfaced. The single privacy note is helpful but leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence ('Page content is not stored') earns its place as behavioral context. The description could be longer given the parameter ambiguity, but as written it is appropriately lean.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the role of json and zone, when to pass them, what the return format looks like, or how invalid or unreachable URLs are handled. The garbled sibling names hint at a larger family (normalize-url, status-catalog), but the description doesn't situate this tool within it.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 4 parameters is already documented (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). The description adds no meaning beyond this; its mention of 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' maps only loosely to the url and host params and doesn't clarify json or zone.
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 names a concrete action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which avoids a tautology, but it only covers part of the tool's surface: the json param ('JSON text to validate') and zone param ('IANA timezone name') have no connection to URL citation. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no sibling tool is named and no conditions are stated. The only scope cue is 'for a URL,' but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over normalize-url, status-catalog, or inspect-robots.
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 target distinct concerns such as URL normalization, robots parsing, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. A few URL/HTTP utilities overlap in input type, but descriptions clarify differences: citation adds HTTP status, normalize-url drops query/fragment, and domain-shape focuses on hostname labels.
Names consistently use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix noun-style names like status-catalog and timezone with verb-style names like inspect-robots and validate-json. There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a mixed utility server covering URLs, HTTP, JSON, and time. A few entries like mime-json and compatibility feel marginal, but the overall count is not bloated.
The surface covers URL inspection, robots, HTTP status codes, JSON validation, and timezone utilities without obvious dead ends. Some related web utilities are absent, but the privacy-focused descriptions suggest those are intentionally excluded.