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?
The description discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, which is beyond what annotations (none) provide. However, it does not state the return format, error handling for invalid URLs, or how the host/json/zone inputs affect behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially meets it.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key output concept and the main transformation are stated immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must fully specify behavior, but it leaves the role of three of four input parameters unexplained and omits output details. For a tool with four optional parameters, this is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The missing return format is especially relevant since the tool is expected to produce structured URL components.
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 baseline is 3, but the description actually creates confusion by listing 'host' as an output while the schema defines 'host' as an input parameter. It adds no meaning for json or zone and does not explain whether these are alternate modes or ignored inputs. The per-parameter schema descriptions are too terse to resolve this ambiguity.
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 operation ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and even notes a concrete transformation (query and fragment are dropped). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like validate-json or timezone, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The description does not explain the unrelated json/zone parameters, so purpose is only partially scoped.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description only implies the tool is for extracting normalized URL components, and none of the sibling alternatives (citation, domain-shape) are referenced. An agent receives no direction for choosing between this and related URL/domain tools.
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 are distinct, but there is overlap in the URL/time clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all involve host/scheme data, while timezone and utc-time both return current time. The vague compatibility tool also adds ambiguity.
Names mix noun-only forms (citation, timezone), verb-object forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound nouns (iana-zones, status-catalog, utc-time). There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count for a general-purpose utility server. Each tool is lightweight and the set is neither bloated nor too sparse.
The domain is an open-ended 'utility index,' so completeness is hard to define; it covers URL handling, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation. However, obvious common utilities like hashing, encoding, or string operations are absent, leaving notable gaps for a general utility server.