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 full transparency burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact — 'Page content is not stored' — but it omits details about network fetching behavior, redirects, timeouts, or what happens when non-URL inputs like `json` or `zone` are supplied.
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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The non-storage statement earns its place by addressing a likely privacy concern.
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 and no output schema, yet the description only addresses URL checking. It leaves the intended roles of `json` and `zone` unexplained and does not say whether at least one parameter is required or what the response shape looks like.
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 schema already documents all parameters in reasonable detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the URL-related purpose and does not clarify how `host`, `json`, or `zone` fit into the tool's behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, and the URL-focused explanation doesn't account for the `json` and `zone` parameters.
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. The only usage signal is the operation itself; no context, exclusions, or 'use instead' routing is provided, even though sibling tools appear to cover related URL/JSON/timezone operations.
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 in input or output: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. The descriptions clarify the intended focus somewhat, but an agent could still misselect between these pairs.
Tool names mix standalone nouns like citation and timezone with verb-noun compounds like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and hyphenation is inconsistent. Most names are still readable and weakly predictable, but there is no strong naming convention.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's apparent 'Robots Inspect' focus is supported by only inspect-robots. The rest are broad URL, time, and JSON utilities, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a server named Robots Inspect, robots.txt coverage stops at group counts and offers no way to retrieve actual rules, test URLs against directives, or compare agent policies. The unrelated utilities do not fill this gap, so core inspection workflows would dead-end.