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 transparency burden and does disclose a real side effect: query and fragment are deliberately dropped, a subtle gotcha that prevents agents from assuming round-trip preservation. Gaps remain around error behavior for invalid URLs, enforcement of the HTTPS requirement, and what happens when the unrelated json/zone parameters are supplied.
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, with the primary action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat second. Every word earns its place; there is zero filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite the crisp core description, this tool has no annotations, no output schema, zero required parameters, and a 4-parameter schema where three parameters (host, json, zone) do not obviously connect to URL normalization. The description does not clarify the return format, parameter roles, or edge cases, so an agent selecting and invoking this tool would face genuine confusion.
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 some context for the url parameter (what normalization means here), but it does nothing to explain host, json, or zone, three parameters that appear entirely unrelated to the stated purpose. This unresolved mismatch keeps it at baseline rather than above.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource (URL) and enumerates the exact output components (origin, host, path), plus an explicit exclusion (query and fragment are dropped). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate-json and iana-zones. It loses a point because it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping domain-shape sibling, which also analyzes URL/domain structure.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would infer this tool is for extracting URL components. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any mention of alternatives, and the sibling domain-shape plausibly overlaps with this tool's purpose without any routing hints.
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, tz-asia-tokyo, and utc-time all return current time with overlapping purposes, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The mix of time and URL tools under a clock server name further confuses selection.
Tool names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern mixes nouns (citation, timezone), verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url), and a special abbreviation (tz-asia-tokyo). The style is readable but not uniformly verb_noun.
11 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the server's apparent focus is unclear — half are time-related and half are URL/HTTP utilities. The count is not excessive, though the breadth feels unaligned with the server name.
The time domain covers current time, UTC, and timezone names, but lacks timezone conversion or date formatting. The URL utilities are a partial set with no page fetch, headers, or query handling, leaving notable gaps for a general web tool surface.