Return origin, host, and path. 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 adds useful behavioral detail by stating that 'Query and fragment are dropped,' which is not available in annotations. However, there are no annotations, and the description says nothing about how the other schema fields (host, json, zone) behave, whether they are ignored, or how invalid input is handled.
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?
Two brief sentences, no filler, and the core output is front-loaded. Every word contributes a specific fact. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 too sparse for a tool with four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and a sibling list with overlapping URL-related tools. It does not explain when to provide host, json, or zone, nor what happens if multiple parameters are supplied. The agent cannot reliably know how to call this tool beyond the simple url-only case.
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. The description does add context about URL output components (origin, host, path) and dropped parts, but it does not explain the relationship or selection among the four optional parameters. It does not compensate for the ambiguity introduced by the unrelated-looking json and zone fields.
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 specific action and output: 'Return origin, host, and path.' It clearly identifies the resource being processed and what the result contains. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or citation, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as citation, domain-shape, or validate-json. It implies URL-focused use, but never states exclusions or alternatives. With four optional parameters and no context for selecting among them, the agent is left to guess the intended invocation.
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.