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 the key behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped, and that origin, host, and path are returned. There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but it gives a reasonable expectation of the output.
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, compact sentence that fully conveys the primary behavior. No superfluous words or redundant explanations. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.
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 tool is simple, but the description is incomplete due to the mismatched parameters. It does not explain how host, json, and zone are used, nor does it provide any output format or example. Given the confusing parameter set, the description fails to give a complete picture of the tool's invocation.
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 schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with individual descriptions, but the tool description only discusses URL. The parameter descriptions for host, json, and zone seem unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify how these parameters relate to URL normalization. This is a severe mismatch.
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's function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This is a specific verb (return) and resource (URL), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URL normalization, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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., domain-shape, inspect-robots). It only describes what it does, leaving the selection criteria implicit. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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 are clearly separate: URL parsing, robots inspection, time lookups, and JSON validation occupy distinct niches. The main confusions are citation vs normaliz-url, both URL inspection, and compatibility, whose classification purpose is vague.
All names use kebab-case, but the parts of speech vary: normalize-url and validate-json are verb-object, while citation, timezone, and iana-zones are noun phrases. This makes the naming readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 11 tools, the server is within the well-scoped range and no tool feels redundant. The scope is broad—URLs, HTTP, time, JSON—but the count itself is not excessive.
As a loose utility server, it offers a few operations per category rather than full coverage: time has current/lookup but no conversion, URL has inspection but no content fetch by design. Missing obvious helpers like URL comparison or timezone conversion, though the server likely aims to be minimal.