slug-ok
Slug character check
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| 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 |
Slug character check
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names a 'check'. It says nothing about side effects, accepted slug rules, error behavior, output format, or why parameters such as zone and json are involved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is only three words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks a complete, front-loaded explanation that would help an agent act on it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four optional heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague sibling context, the description is far too weak. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the tool returns, or how it relates to URL normalization, JSON validation, or timezone handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema itself documents each parameter adequately for basic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Slug character check' is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name without stating an action, object, or result. It fails to explain what is checked or returned and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use slug-ok versus any sibling tool. The heterogeneous parameters (url, host, json, zone) only deepen the ambiguity, and the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping concerns: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all relate to time. The purpose of compatibility is vague and could be confused with the URL inspection tools. Only a few tools like slug-ok and validate-json are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), while others are bare nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone). There is no unified verb_noun convention, though the names remain readable.
Tool Count3/5
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the tool set is unfocused for a server named 'Slug character check.' Most tools address unrelated concerns such as time, URLs, HTTP status, and JSON, making the collection feel padded rather than purpose-built.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks a coherent domain: slug checking has only one thin tool, URL utilities have no encoding/decoding or query-param handling, and time utilities lack conversions or formatting options. For any single stated purpose, the surface has significant gaps and no end-to-end workflow.