Skip to main content
Glama

SHA-1, input discarded

normalize-url

Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
zoneNoIANA timezone name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs), authentication needs, or side effects beyond the transformation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail or verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description omits critical context such as parameter explanations and the apparent mismatch between the description and the schema. It lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially with the confusing parameter list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The input schema lists url, host, json, and zone with descriptions that are unrelated to URL normalization, creating confusion. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they relate to the tool's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and that query/fragment are dropped. It identifies the resource (URL) and the specific operation (normalize), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation or validate-json.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or conditions for using normalize-url, nor does it reference sibling tools or give examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname details, while timezone and utc-time both provide time-related data. This creates ambiguity and potential misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix single-word nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated descriptors (domain-shape, normalize-url), and odd forms like sha1-ok. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or naming convention.

Tool Count3/5

Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the collection feels like an arbitrary bundle of unrelated utilities rather than a focused server, making the count seem heavier than justified.

Completeness2/5

The tools span URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and hashing, but no coherent domain emerges. As a result, it is unclear what workflow is being supported, and obvious coverage gaps exist for any single intended purpose.