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 explicitly states that query and fragment are dropped, disclosing the tool's behavior. Since there are no annotations to carry this burden, the description provides a clear expectation of output transformation.
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 a single concise sentence that packs all essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 omits any explanation of the parameters (especially the mismatched ones) and does not specify the output format or structure. Given the schema inconsistency, the description is incomplete for a user to reliably deploy the tool.
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 input schema lists parameters (url, host, json, zone) that do not align with the described functionality. Only 'url' seems relevant, while 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are unrelated and unexplained, creating significant ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.
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's function with a specific verb (return) and a precise output (origin, host, path) while also noting what is discarded (query, fragment). This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need URL components) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or mention when not to use it. It gives no guidance on alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., timezone vs. normalize-url). The only minor overlap is between 'timezone' and 'tz-europe-madrid', but they differ in generality (any named zone vs. a fixed zone).
All tool names follow the same lowercase, hyphen-separated pattern (e.g., 'tz-europe-madrid', 'utc-time', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb usage.
11 tools is a reasonable number. The set includes several non-clock utilities (URL, JSON, robots) that broaden scope beyond the server's name, but the count itself is not excessive or too sparse.
For a clock/time server, core operations are covered: UTC time, named timezone, and a specific fixed zone. The 'iana-zones' tool aids discovery, though a full zone list or conversion functionality is missing. Extra web/JSON tools are unrelated but not a defect.