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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key transformation (query and fragment are dropped), but it remains silent on side effects, error handling, URL validity requirements, and output format.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and transformation. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the return value is only vaguely described as 'origin, host, and path.' It omits the output structure or example, and doesn't mention the extra parameters, leaving some ambiguity about expected invocation.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description implies 'url' is the primary input but does not clarify how host, json, and zone relate to normalization, which could confuse an agent despite the schema descriptions.
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 names a specific operation: returning origin, host, and path from a URL and dropping query/fragment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots, though it does not explicitly address the other schema parameters.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only context is that it operates on URLs, which is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly framed as usage guidance.
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.
The time tools overlap heavily: timezone can replicate utc-time and tz-america-los-angeles, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one. The URL/HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but compatibility is vague and domain-shape/normalize-url both operate on hostname structure.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated style, which is clean and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some names are verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) while others are bare nouns (citation, timezone, utc-time), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in absolute terms, but the set is divided between time-related tools and unrelated URL/HTTP inspection utilities. Under the 'clock' identity, the count feels inflated and the purpose is diluted.
For a clock service, the core time queries are covered, but there is no timezone conversion or exhaustive zone listing. If viewed as a network-inspection suite, some exclusions are intentional, yet compatibility is underspecified and the overall domain remains unclear.