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 one useful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, so it should clarify behavior for the other parameters and error/validation cases. The schema hints at JSON validation and timezone handling that are completely undocumented in the description.
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 sentence with no filler. The primary output is front-loaded and the dropped-components constraint is stated efficiently.
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 sufficient for a minimal URL-normalization tool, but the schema contains four parameters including unrelated types (host, json, zone) and there is no output schema. An agent cannot determine whether or how to use the other parameters. The description is incomplete for the actual tool surface.
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 a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the description only addresses the url parameter and contradicts the presence of host, json, and zone by implying only URL input matters. This mismatch hurts semantic clarity rather than adding value beyond the 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 verb and output for a URL: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also notes the query and fragment are dropped. However, the input schema includes host, json, and zone parameters that the description does not mention, so the described scope does not cover the tool's full surface. Sibling differentiation is also absent.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain, status, validate-json). It also does not explain when to provide the host, json, or zone parameters. The context is entirely implicit.
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.
Multiple tools overlap in purpose: utc-time, timezone, and tz-europe-paris all return current time, while citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs. compatibility is especially vague and could be confused with several other request-classification tools.
Names are consistently hyphenated, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun-only (citation, timezone, status-catalog). The odd tz-europe-paris name further weakens predictability.
Eleven tools is not an inherently excessive count, but the set is poorly scoped for a server named 'Europe/Paris clock'. Most tools relate to URLs, HTTP, robots, or JSON rather than time, making the server feel padded with unrelated utilities.
As a clock server, there is basic coverage for timezones and UTC, but no time conversion or formatting options. As a URL/HTTP utility server, it lacks content retrieval and other standard operations, so the mixed scope leaves significant gaps for any coherent interpretation.