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 omits other behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs. Given the absence of annotations, the description only partially covers transparency.
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 concise and direct, using two short sentences to convey the core functionality and a key constraint. There is no fluff or redundant information.
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 due to the unexplained presence of three parameters (host, json, zone) that do not align with the stated purpose. It also lacks any indication of the output format or structure, leaving the tool's full behavior 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 parameter descriptions are severely misaligned with the tool's purpose. While 'url' logically fits, 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have descriptions that are unrelated to citation or HTTP status checks (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). These descriptions mislead rather than clarify the parameters' roles.
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 core function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. The note about not storing page content adds a clarifying constraint, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog. The note about not storing content implies a citation use case, but this is not explicit or actionable for tool selection.
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 functions, but current-time tools overlap: timezone accepts any IANA zone while tz-asia-hong-kong and utc-time are hardcoded special cases, creating redundancy. citation and compatibility also have vague descriptions that could be confused.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated multi-word phrases (domain-shape, inspect-robots, normalize-url, tz-asia-hong-kong). There is no consistent verb_noun or naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'Asia/Hong_Kong clock' many tools (URL, HTTP, JSON, robots.txt) are unrelated to timekeeping. The set feels like a bundled grab-bag rather than a focused clock utility.
For a clock/time server, the core operations exist (list zones, current time in a zone, UTC), but there is no timezone conversion, formatting, or date arithmetic. Meanwhile the unrelated web/JSON utilities do not compensate for the missing time-focused functionality.