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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral burden. 'Page content is not stored' is a useful storage/privacy disclosure, but nothing is said about fetch behavior, error handling, rate limits, or what side effects (if any) occur when json or zone are supplied.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and no wasted words. The privacy note earns its place, though the overall terseness sacrifices coverage of the tool's full parameter scope.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, and the description explains only one of four parameters. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns for host-only or zone-only invocations, nor how the json and zone parameters interact with the URL-citation purpose.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. But the description addresses only the url parameter; the json and zone parameters appear disjoint from the stated purpose, and the agent is left guessing whether they act as alternative modes, filters, or unrelated validations.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('a URL') and concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status). However, the json and zone parameters suggest the tool has additional capabilities or modes that the description does not acknowledge, so the stated scope is incomplete.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json likely overlap with this tool's URL and JSON behaviors, but the description offers no selection criteria or exclusions.
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 timezone tools overlap heavily: `timezone` already supports named IANA zones, making `utc-time` and `tz-america-new-york` largely redundant. The URL tools also blur together (`citation` vs `normalize-url` both return host/scheme information), and `compatibility` is too vague to confidently distinguish from the other request-classification tools.
All names share a lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix conventions: verb-prefixed tools like `inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, and `validate-json` sit alongside noun phrases like `domain-shape`, `status-catalog`, and `utc-time`, plus single-word names like `timezone` and `citation`. The names are readable and predictable in format, but not in action pattern.
Eleven tools is not an extreme number, but the set is not well-scoped: it mixes time, URL normalization, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation concerns. The count feels like several small toolkits merged into one server rather than a focused tool collection where each tool clearly earns its place.
There is no coherent domain to call complete. As a clock server, it lacks timezone conversion, offsets, or date formatting; as a web utility server, it lacks common operations like fetching content or inspecting headers. Significant operations for either inferred purpose are missing, so agents would likely hit dead ends.