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 that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention that the tool likely makes an HTTP request, what happens on failure, whether redirects are followed, or any rate/usage implications. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full responsibility for side-effect 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 very short and the one sentence earns its place, but it omits necessary context about parameters and return format. Conciseness is acceptable, though somewhat too minimal for a tool with a misleading input schema.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not specify the format of the returned host, scheme, and HTTP status. It also fails to address the extraneous parameters or explain error behavior, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Only the url parameter seems relevant to the described purpose, but the schema also includes host, json, and zone with generic descriptions that appear unrelated. The description does not clarify whether these parameters are ignored, optional, or meaningful, and it adds no explanation beyond the confusing schema.
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 tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like normalize-url and status-catalog. However, it does not explicitly name the tool's purpose as 'citation' or explain what makes this different from simply normalizing a URL.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as normalize-url, status-catalog, or inspect-robots. It does not mention whether this tool should be preferred for citation workflows or what conditions make it the right choice.
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` and `tz-europe-london` both report current time, and `citation`, `normalize-url`, and `domain-shape` all inspect URL components. The mix of URL, HTTP, JSON, and clock tools makes it unclear which tool should be used for a given request.
Tool names mix noun phrases (`citation`, `status-catalog`), hyphenated action verbs (`normalize-url`, `validate-json`), and a specific timezone identifier (`tz-europe-london`). There is no consistent verb-noun or domain-based naming pattern across the set.
The server name suggests a clock/timezone tool, but 11 tools include many unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is far more than needed for the apparent core purpose, and the extra tools add noise rather than value.
For the clock/timezone aspect, the set provides UTC time, named timezone lookup, and a list of IANA zones, which covers basic needs. However, the inclusion of unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON tools makes the completeness of the overall server muddled, and there is no timezone conversion or formatting utility.