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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one useful disclosure: "Page content is not stored." But it stops there — it does not say whether the tool performs network fetches, follows redirects, handles unreachable URLs, or whether the json/zone branches have side effects. Partial disclosure, no contradiction.
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, each earning its place: one states the purpose, the other a behavioral claim. The key output is front-loaded with no filler.
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 four-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers only the URL case. It does not explain return shape, parameter combination rules, error behavior, or alternatives among params. The schema descriptions help but cannot carry the missing context.
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. The description adds meaning for 'url' by specifying its outputs, but it never relates host, json, or zone to any behavior, and it is ambiguous whether 'host' is an input or the returned host. The schema descriptions are minimal, so the tool's multiple modes remain unexplained.
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 states a specific output for one use case: "Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL." However, the input schema carries three additional parameters (host, json, zone) whose purpose the description never acknowledges, so the stated purpose does not describe the whole tool. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools such as normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json, or timezone.
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 vs. its siblings. The description offers neither exclusions nor alternatives, and the sibling set overlaps heavily with the JSON and timezone parameters, leaving an agent to guess which tool handles what.
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.
Timezone, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai tools overlap: timezone can replicate the other two by passing a zone name, and citation/normalize-url both return host/scheme information. The compatibility tool is also vague about what it classifies, adding more boundary ambiguity.
Names are all lowercase and hyphenated, but they mix bare nouns like citation and timezone with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hardcoded tz-asia-shanghai also breaks the otherwise readable pattern.
Eleven tools is not extreme as a raw count, but for a server named Asia/Shanghai clock only four tools are time-related. The remaining URL, HTTP, and JSON helpers make the surface feel bloated and misaligned with the stated purpose.
The time domain covers basic zone lookups, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai, but lacks offset/DST details or conversion. The unrelated web/json tools create a second half-baked domain with no clear coverage, so the overall set does not feel complete for any single purpose.