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?
The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explain how the host, json, or zone parameters affect behavior. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 text is brief and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the brevity omits necessary parameter context.
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 parameters, only addressing URL behavior and ignoring json, host, and zone. No output schema is provided, so expected results are not fully specified.
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?
Parameter descriptions are present but inconsistent with the stated purpose: url mentions 'cite', while json and zone seem unrelated to URL normalization. They do not clarify how each parameter is used.
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 action and resource: returning origin, host, and path for a URL. However, the parameter list includes host, json, and zone, which are not explained in the purpose, making the tool's actual scope unclear.
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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like validate-json or timezone. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions.
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 overlap in purpose: timezone, tz-europe-berlin, and utc-time all return current time, and citation/normalize-url both analyze URL components. 'compatibility' is too vague to distinguish from the other HTTP/classification tools.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent delimiter style, but the pattern mixes verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun phrases (citation, compatibility, status-catalog). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server is named as a clock and only four tools (timezone, tz-europe-berlin, utc-time, iana-zones) support that purpose. The rest are unrelated web/HTTP/JSON utilities, making the set poorly scoped.
For the clock domain, time lookup is covered but timezone conversion is missing. For the broader web/HTTP utilities hinted at by the other tools, the surface is incomplete and lacks a clear lifecycle or workflow, so agents would hit dead ends.