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?
The only behavioral disclosure is 'Page content is not stored,' a useful privacy guarantee. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits whether the URL is fetched, redirect handling, timeouts or rate limits, and why json/zone inputs are accepted.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary output is stated first and the privacy note follows. Brevity is achieved by omitting parameter-level detail, but the structure itself is clean and easy to scan.
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 4-parameter, 0-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only URL-derived behavior and leaves host, json, and zone entirely unexplained. Return values are stated, but error conditions, output shape, and how the tool relates to its 'citation' name are all missing.
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 of 3 applies; the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only an implicit mapping from url to host/scheme/status and contributes nothing about host, json, or zone beyond what the schema states.
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 concrete output ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') with a specific verb and resource, so it is not a tautology. However, it conflicts with the tool name 'citation' (which implies generating references) and ignores three of the four schema parameters (host, json, zone), leaving the true scope ambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling or alternative tool is referenced even though the sibling list appears to contain overlapping tools (status, normalize, validate). 'Page content is not stored' is a behavior note, not a usage guideline.
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 URL-focused tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) overlap in what they inspect, though their descriptions do specify different outputs. compatibility and sha256-ok are vague, but most other tools have clearly separate jobs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix verb-object names (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, timezone, status-catalog, iana-zones). This is readable but gives agents no reliable pattern for predicting tool names.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable size for a general-purpose privacy-safe utility server, and no tool is an exact duplicate. The set could be tightened around a single domain, but the count itself is not excessive.
The server's domain is too broad and unfocused to define a complete workflow: URL inspection lacks redirect/header coverage, timezone handling lacks conversions, and JSON/hash tools are single-purpose checks. As a result, agents will likely need tools outside this server for related operations.