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 mentions the behavior of dropping query and fragment, but lacks detail on error handling, return format, or side effects. The schema mismatch further obscures the actual behavior.
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, clear sentence without unnecessary words. However, the schema structure is cluttered with unrelated parameters, which detracts from overall conciseness.
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 tool is incomplete because the schema does not match the description. An agent would not know which parameters to provide or how they relate to the stated functionality, making it difficult to invoke correctly.
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 parameter descriptions are misleading. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', neither of which relates to URL normalization. The description does not explain how these parameters should be used.
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 (return origin, host, path, drop query/fragment), but the schema parameters (host, json, zone) are unrelated to this purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would warrant its use.
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.