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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior of dropping query and fragment, but it fails to explain how the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters interact with URL normalization, and it says nothing about invalid URL handling or error behavior.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the most important behavioral information is front-loaded. Both sentences earn their 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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with four heterogeneous parameters and no output schema or annotations. It is silent on how the non-URL parameters affect behavior, what the return format looks like, and what happens on errors or invalid input.
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 schema descriptions cover all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context only for the 'url' parameter by noting query and fragment are dropped; it does not add any semantic value for 'host', 'json', or 'zone' beyond what the schema already states.
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 verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on different resources, such as domain or validate-json.
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 intended use is implied by the name and the URL-focus of the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description relies entirely on inference.
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.