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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds 'Page content is not stored,' which clarifies a key side effect (no content persistence) and sets expectations about privacy. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like whether it fetches the URL, network dependencies, or what happens on invalid URLs. The added note is helpful but incomplete.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by an important clarifying clause about content storage. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured to mention the multi-purpose nature of the tool (URL, host, JSON, zone).
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is short and leaves out several operational details, such as whether a network request is made, what the returned status range looks like, and how the `host`, `json`, and `zone` parameters are validated. The 'Page content is not stored' note adds some user-facing context, but an agent might still be uncertain about invocation semantics for most parameters.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only explains the URL-related purpose and does not add meaning for `host`, `json`, or `zone` parameters. It does add a behavioral note about JSON being 'discarded after the check,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (`Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL`) and names the resource (a URL), distinguishing it from typical citation tools that might store or format a full citation. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the wide range of sibling tools shown in context.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it is not appropriate. The sibling list shows many similarly named tools, but the description provides no routing context, such as 'use for simple URL validation or normalization' or 'use for time zone validation instead of ...'.
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 a distinct shape or check, but `citation` and `normalize-url` both return URL host/scheme information, and `timezone`/`utc-time` overlap enough to cause occasional misselection. Overall, tool descriptions clarify the intended purpose in most cases.
All tool names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent casing convention. The mix of noun-style names like `citation` and verb-object names like `validate-json` is a minor semantic inconsistency but not a confusing one.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a lightweight utility server. Some reference-style helpers like `status-catalog` and `iana-zones` could be consolidated, but the set is not bloated.
The set covers URL, time, phone, JSON, and robots shape checks, but the broad 'shape' theme suggests notable gaps such as email or IP address shape validation and timezone conversion. These omissions are workable but could cause agent dead ends.