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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses an important behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, which goes beyond simply saying 'normalize a URL.' This tells the agent that those components will not appear in the result.
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 deliver the core behavior with no filler. The action and result are front-loaded, and the important 'query and fragment are dropped' detail is placed immediately after.
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 tool has four optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, but the description only covers URL normalization. An agent cannot tell whether host, json, and zone are alternatives, ignored, or valid modes, nor what the response shape will be.
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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for its parameters, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, it adds no meaning for the host, json, and zone parameters, leaving their relationship to the stated URL purpose unexplained; the description only adds context for the url parameter.
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 states a specific action and result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly identifies the tool as a URL normalization/extraction function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from adjacent siblings like citation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer normalize-url over other URL-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies the tool is for extracting normalized URL parts, but it does not state when not to use it or how to choose among siblings.
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.
Several tools overlap: citation and normalize-url both return URL origin/host information, while timezone and utc-time both provide current time. The descriptions help separate most tools, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with classification or request-checking tools.
Names use lowercase hyphenation and are generally readable, but they mix verb-led forms like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json with noun-led forms like domain-shape, status-catalog, and utc-time. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'Nano ID shape check' the scope feels diffuse, with URL, time, JSON, and HTTP status utilities included. Several tools do not clearly earn their place under that stated purpose.
The server claims a narrow Nano ID focus, yet only one tool directly supports it, while URL, JSON, time, and robots checks are shallow one-offs. There are no tools for generating or custom-validating Nano IDs, and URL handling stops at normalization without redirects or deeper request inspection.