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 indicates a pure transformation: returns origin, host, and path while dropping query and fragment. However, it does not explain behavior for invalid URLs or for the extra input parameters (host, json, zone) included in the schema.
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 well structured, using two short sentences to convey the core behavior and output. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.
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 given the input schema's four parameters; it only addresses URL handling. There is no output schema or mention of return format details beyond 'origin, host, and path', leaving significant ambiguity about the extra parameters and edge cases.
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, while the schema includes four parameters: url, host, json, and zone. The descriptions for host, json, and zone are unrelated to URL normalization, and the tool description does not clarify their role or whether they are actually 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, and path for a URL' and notes that query and fragment are dropped. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like validate-json or timezone, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any alternative.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for URL normalization, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
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.