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 description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or what happens with invalid URLs, so transparency is only partial. No annotations are provided to supplement this.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured with the primary action and output first, followed by a clarifying note. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 the full context of the tool. It does not explain the extra parameters or how they relate to the core functionality. This makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information, especially given the mismatch between the described behavior and the schema.
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 only explains the 'url' parameter implicitly by mentioning 'a URL.' The other three parameters (host, json, zone) are not explained at all, leaving their purpose completely unclear. This is a significant gap given that the schema lists four parameters and the description covers only one.
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 verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also includes a helpful clarification that page content is not stored, which distinguishes it from content-fetching tools. The purpose is unambiguous and easy to understand.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.
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 purposes, but timezone, tz-america-denver, and utc-time overlap in providing time information, which could cause confusion. The URL-related tools (citation, domain-shape, normalize-url) are clearly differentiated.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, which is consistent. However, the mix of noun-style (citation, timezone) and verb-noun style (normalize-url, validate-json) names is slightly inconsistent but still readable and predictable.
The 11 tools cover a focused set of utilities (URL, time, HTTP status, JSON validation) without being excessive. The count is well-suited for the server's apparent purpose.
The tool set covers common URL, time, and validation needs. Minor gaps like a dedicated tool to get current date or to validate URLs exist, but the existing tools handle these indirectly and the surface feels reasonably complete.