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 the side effect that 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful for trust. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as network requests, potential failures, or whether the tool performs any caching or logging. With no annotations to rely on, this is a moderate level of 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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences to convey the core action and a key side-effect note. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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 lacks essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the output, what the expected input format is (beyond 'HTTPS URL'), or what the output schema looks like (no output schema is provided). The mismatch between the description and parameters further reduces completeness, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 brief and largely disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name,' which have no obvious relation to returning host, scheme, or HTTP status. The 'url' and 'host' descriptions are somewhat relevant but still vague (e.g., 'Public hostname' is unclear). Overall, the parameters do not coherently map to the described functionality.
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 verb 'Return' and the specific output ('host, scheme, and HTTP status') for a URL, which is a distinct action. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) creates some ambiguity about the tool's exact scope, but the core purpose remains understandable.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. It only states a factual output and a negative note about not storing content, but no explicit conditions or use cases are given.
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.
Tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-asia-singapore' overlap in purpose, though the latter is location-specific. Similarly, 'normalize-url' and 'inspect-robots' both relate to URLs but serve different functions. Overall, most tools are distinguishable but a few could cause selection ambiguity.
Names are highly inconsistent: some are verb phrases (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'), some are nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'iana-zones'), and there's no unified pattern. Hyphenation is used but not systematically, and the mix of imperative and descriptive naming makes the set feel arbitrary.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a multi-purpose utility server. However, the set feels padded with niche tools like 'tz-asia-singapore' while lacking broader coverage, making the count slightly high for the apparent scope.
The tools cover disparate domains (URLs, timezones, JSON, HTTP status) without forming a coherent service. For a clock/timezone server, there are redundant tools but no common operations like list all timezones or convert between zones. For a URL utility, missing fetch or parse variants. The domain is unclear, leading to significant gaps.