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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful privacy guarantee: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs network fetches, handles redirects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, which are important given the URL-fetching implication.
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 very concise and front-loaded: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.' Both sentences earn their place, with the second adding a meaningful privacy-relevant behavioral note. No unnecessary wording or 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?
For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the roles of `host`, `json`, and `zone`, does not describe the return value structure, and gives no selection guidance. An agent would likely misuse this tool when trying to validate JSON or resolve a timezone.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description only addresses the `url` parameter while the schema includes `host`, `json`, and `zone`. The description does not clarify how the other three parameters relate to the tool, and `host` is both described as an input and as something returned, which is confusing. This mismatch undermines the value the description could add.
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 a clear action and object: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is specific and informative. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, and the generic title 'citation' adds little context.
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 siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json, or timezone. The description simply states what it returns, with no exclusions, conditions, or 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.
Several tools are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both return URL-derived fields, and timezone/utc-time overlap in purpose. compatibility is vague enough that an agent could struggle to know when to use it over the URL inspection tools.
Names mix bare nouns (citation, timezone, compatibility) with verb-noun forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the grammatical pattern is not, making the set feel ad hoc.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but the set includes unrelated areas like timezones, HTTP status codes, and JSON validation under a URL Normalize server. Several tools do not clearly earn their place relative to the stated purpose.
The only tool directly addressing the server's core purpose is normalize-url, and it only returns origin, host, and path. Missing URL comparison, query/fragment handling, or rewrite capabilities leaves the main workflow incomplete, while unrelated tools do not fill those gaps.