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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' However, it does not mention how invalid URLs are handled, whether the operation is purely read-only, or what happens when no URL is supplied, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key behavioral note about dropping query and fragment is included efficiently.
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 a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations. It does not explain the role of the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters, nor clarify why no parameters are marked required. An agent could not reliably determine the full calling contract from this description alone.
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 each parameter already has a description, establishing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only clarifies that query and fragment are removed from the URL. The presence of unrelated parameters like 'json' and 'zone' is not reconciled.
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 verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It clearly communicates the core transformation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools that might also deal with URLs, so it falls short of a 5.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage is to normalize a URL, but the description does not explicitly address competing tools or conditions.
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 have overlapping purposes: citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs and return host/scheme information, while compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The time tools are distinct but cluster together, making the overall set boundary-unclear for an agent.
Tool names mix single nouns like citation and timezone with hyphenated noun-noun forms like domain-shape and status-catalog, plus verb-noun forms like normalize-url and validate-json. There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but several are extremely narrow utilities such as port-443 and utc-time. The count is not excessive, though the set feels slightly padded with trivial helpers.
The server seems to target a loose mix of web/HTTP, URL, time, and JSON utilities, and covers those niches at a basic level. However, core HTTP operations like fetching headers or inspecting responses are absent, and the overall domain is unclear enough that significant gaps are easy to imagine.