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?
It discloses a key behavior: query and fragment are dropped. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention HTTPS-only constraints, invalid URL handling, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The existing disclosure is useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the primary result (origin, host, path) and adds the dropping behavior, making it easy to scan while remaining compact.
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 incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It covers only the 'url' concept and ignores the host, json, and zone parameters, which appear unrelated to URL normalization. An agent would be uncertain how to populate or interpret these fields.
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%, giving each parameter a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not help reconcile the presence of host, json, and zone with a URL-normalization tool, though the schema descriptions themselves are self-explanatory.
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 clear, specific outcome: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This distinguishes it from generic URL helpers and other sibling tools like validate-json. The verb 'return' plus the exact extracted components make the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need the origin, host, or path of a URL and want query/fragment removed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, so an agent must infer the usage context.
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.