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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state a meaningful privacy behavior ('Page content is not stored'), implying read-only URL handling, but it does not mention network behavior, rate limits, or validation/safety details for the json/zone parameters.
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 with no filler. The first states the output clearly; the second adds a valuable privacy trait. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers URL handling. The roles of json, host, and zone are left unexplained, and the sibling list suggests overlapping tools without any routing guidance.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema and does not explain why json, host, or zone are inputs or how they relate to 'host, scheme, and HTTP status'; this creates some confusion, but the schema at least labels each 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), and adds a meaningful behavior ('Page content is not stored'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, but the core action is clear.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, or validate-json. The description implies a URL-checking use case but never states conditions or exclusions.
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 occupy overlapping territory: rfc3339-now and utc-time both return current UTC time, while citation and normalize-url both surface host/scheme metadata for URLs. The compatibility tool is also vague and could be confused with citation's request classification role.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is inconsistent: citation, timezone, and status-catalog are noun-style, while normalize-url, inspect-robots, and validate-json are verb-style. There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a toolkit that spans time, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. However, the near-duplicate time and URL utilities could likely be consolidated without losing capability.
The toolset covers its apparent privacy-focused metadata utilities well: current time, timezone names, URL shape, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation. Minor gaps like timezone conversion or custom timestamp formatting exist, but agents can work around them.