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?
The description discloses the tool's output behavior (returning origin, host, path) and its handling of query and fragment (dropping them). It does not mention side effects or errors, but the described behavior is clear and aligns with the tool's stated function.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's core action and output. There is no superfluous wording.
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 because the input schema contains parameters that are not explained or are irrelevant to the stated purpose. Without further context, a user cannot confidently determine what to pass for 'host', 'json', or 'zone', making the tool's full usage unclear.
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?
The description does not explain any of the parameters. The schema includes parameters like 'host', 'json', and 'zone' that are unrelated to URL normalization, and their descriptions are confusing (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The only relevant param is 'url', but the description gives no guidance on how to use the others. This creates significant ambiguity.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return the origin, host, and path for a URL, and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes its core function.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like validate-json or timezone, leaving the user to infer 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.
Most tools have distinct inputs and outputs, but citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, while timezone, tz-america-chicago, and utc-time all return current time. Descriptions clarify the differences, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog or citation.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is readable, but they mix verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog. There is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'America/Chicago clock' only four tools relate to time. The remaining seven URL, HTTP, robots, and JSON utilities are off-purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The time-related tools cover current time in Chicago, UTC, named IANA zones, and a zone list, so the clock core is usable. However, there is no timezone conversion or date arithmetic, and the unrelated utilities do not form a coherent broader domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete.