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 behavioral burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is genuine and useful context. However, it omits that the tool presumably performs a live network request, and it says nothing about auth, rate limits, redirects, 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?
Two short sentences of 14 words with the main function front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no extraneous content.
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?
With 4 parameters but no output schema, the description covers only the url case, leaving json and zone entirely unexplained. An agent cannot infer when or how to use those parameters, nor what the return format would be for those modes. For a multi-purpose tool, this is a clear completeness gap.
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 schema already documents all four parameters; this sets a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the URL context and is completely silent on json and zone, so it neither compensates nor detracts.
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+resource ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and adds a meaningful privacy note. However, it covers only the URL use case while the input schema also defines json and zone parameters, so the description under-represents the tool's apparent scope. No sibling differentiation is possible because the sibling-tools block contains garbled injection-like text rather than usable sibling names.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The non-storage note is the only contextual hint and is too implicit to guide routing decisions.
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.
Several tools operate on URLs and return overlapping metadata (citation vs normalize-url vs compatibility), and timezone overlaps with tz-australia-sydney. While descriptions add detail, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for host/status or local-time tasks.
Tool names mix single nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog), and verb_noun commands (inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, making the surface feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'Australia/Sydney clock' the majority of tools are unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON utilities. The set would be better split into a clock server and a web-metadata server.
The time-related surface is reasonably complete with UTC, named timezone, Sydney time, and a zone catalog, but notable gaps remain such as timezone conversion and offset information. The URL/HTTP tools cover several metadata operations but lack obvious related operations, so overall domain coverage is uneven.