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 a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain side effects, error conditions, or the behavior regarding the json and zone parameters (e.g., whether they are accepted but ignored, or if they trigger additional checks). The lack of annotations further reduces 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the privacy note is secondary. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool has four parameters and a presumably straightforward output, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the host, json, and zone parameters, nor does it describe the output structure (beyond 'host, scheme, HTTP status'). The description leaves too much to infer about the tool's actual behavior and applicability.
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?
Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds no meaning for host, json, or zone. The description only implies url as the primary input. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and do not clarify the role of these parameters in the citation process, leaving their purpose ambiguous.
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 primary function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Page content is not stored' adds a distinguishing caveat. However, the presence of unexpected parameters (host, json, zone) in the schema introduces ambiguity about the tool's full scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only additional note ('Page content is not stored') is a privacy caveat, not usage direction.
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 heavily: timezone, tz-pacific-auckland, and utc-time all return current time, and URL/HTTP tools like citation, compatibility, normalize-url, and domain-shape have unclear boundaries. Agents would likely struggle to pick the right one.
Names are mostly lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-object forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-like labels (citation, compatibility, timezone) and an inconsistent specific alias (tz-pacific-auckland vs timezone).
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named as a Pacific/Auckland clock, at least seven tools are unrelated URL/HTTP utilities and several time tools are redundant, making the set feel padded and poorly scoped.
The time-related subset covers current time, UTC, and IANA zone names, so it is largely complete for a simple clock. However, the mixed URL/HTTP and validation tools have no clear unified domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete and hard to reason about.