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 what the tool returns (origin, host, path) and what it discards (query, fragment), which is transparent about its behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or output format. The schema mismatch further clouds behavioral expectations.
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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and includes a clear note about what is dropped, with no unnecessary filler.
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 incomplete given the mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema. It does not explain the extra parameters, lacks an output schema, and fails to provide enough context for an agent 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?
The description only mentions the URL parameter implicitly, but the schema includes host, json, and zone with no explanation of their roles. The parameter semantics are largely unexplained and appear inconsistent with the stated purpose.
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 states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment, which is clear about its core function. However, the input schema lists unrelated fields (host, json, zone), creating confusion about the actual purpose. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like citation or compatibility.
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 alternatives. No context is given for typical use cases, edge cases, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.
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 distinct purposes, though time-related tools (timezone, tz-utc, utc-time) and URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) share overlapping domains. However, each tool's specific output and intent are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tools use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens naming convention (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, utc-time). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer function from name.
The server exposes 11 tools, which is a reasonable number for a general-purpose utility. Each tool serves a distinct function without being redundant or excessive, fitting well within the typical range.
The tools cover a broad set of utilities (time, URL parsing, HTTP status, JSON validation, robots.txt), but the server name suggests a clock focus. While time-related functionality is well represented, the additional URL and HTTP tools indicate a mixed-purpose design rather than a fully comprehensive single domain.