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?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source. It implies a pure function (returning a normalized URL) with no side effects, but does not explicitly mention idempotency, errors, or any state changes. Given the lack of annotations, the description gives moderate transparency but leaves room for inference.
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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality and the exclusion of query/fragment. It is highly concise with no filler words, making it easy to interpret quickly.
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 omits critical context for correct usage. It does not mention what input format is expected, whether the output is a string or object, how errors are handled, or any examples. Additionally, the misleading parameter descriptions add confusion rather than completeness. Overall, the tool is not adequately contextualized for an agent to invoke it reliably.
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 completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. The tool normalizes URLs, yet the parameters include 'json' (JSON text to validate) and 'zone' (IANA timezone name), which are irrelevant. The 'url' description mentions 'normalize or cite' which is vague, and 'host' is ambiguous. This severely impairs an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'origin, host, and path for a URL', plus what is dropped. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'timezone', although it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice over related tools like 'validate-json' 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.