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 explains the core behavior (extracting URL components and dropping query/fragment) but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or additional behavior. The presence of unexplained parameters in the schema 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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 crucial information about the extra parameters, making it incomplete for a caller to understand the full tool contract. It only covers the core URL normalization behavior.
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 description does not explain the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters, which are present in the schema. Only the 'url' parameter is implicitly described by the tool's purpose. The schema descriptions for the extra parameters are vague and unrelated to URL normalization.
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 origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific about the output, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.
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.