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, the description carries the transparency burden. It offers one useful behavioral guarantee ('Page content is not stored'), but omits other side effects, error behavior, or any mention of network requests, rate limits, or permissions.
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, using two short sentences with no redundant words or fluff. It front-loads the core functionality and adds a brief privacy-relevant caveat.
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 too sparse for the apparent complexity of the schema. It does not explain how the four parameters relate, which parameters are required, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. The mismatched parameters make the context incomplete.
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 parameter descriptions are confusing and inconsistent with the tool description. While url relates to the stated purpose, host, json, and zone appear unrelated or mismatched; json and zone seem copied from other tools. The schema provides no coherent meaning for these parameters in the context 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 clearly states the primary action and result: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated sibling tools like validate-json or utc-time, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as normalize-url or status-catalog.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering URL analysis, time/date, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation with no significant overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention, matching the style across the entire set with no mixed casing or underscores.
The set of 11 tools is reasonable for a general-purpose utility server, providing a moderate breadth without feeling bloated or sparse.
The domain appears to be 'web developer utilities,' and while it covers common needs like URL handling, time, HTTP status, and JSON, some expected utilities (e.g., base64, HTML escaping) are missing, making it slightly incomplete.