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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait — 'Page content is not stored' — and states the HTTP status check. However, it does not explain that this tool performs a network request, any potential latency/errors, or the meaning of the returned values beyond their names. Partial transparency, no contradiction.
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 short sentences with no filler: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.' The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite having exactly four parameters and no output schema, the description only explains the URL-related behavior. It does not clarify why 'json' and 'zone' parameters exist, what output format is returned, or how the tool handles errors or redirects. For a tool with this parameter mismatch, the description leaves significant ambiguity.
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. Each parameter has a brief schema-level description, and 'url' is echoed in the tool description as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite.' However, the description adds no semantic linkage for the seemingly unrelated parameters 'host,' 'json,' and 'zone,' which do not clearly fit the 'citation' purpose stated in the description.
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 verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This clearly indicates the tool performs a URL inspection/HTTP check. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though it attempts to with the 'Page content is not stored' caveat.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or conditions. The sibling-tools list appears garbled/corrupted, so no alternative routing is provided. The only implicit context is that the tool is for URL citation checks, which is weak.
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.
Tools cluster into URL/HTTP and time-related groups, but within each cluster the purposes are mostly distinguishable. citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all touch hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and weekday-utc all return current time data, so an agent could briefly hesitate when selecting among them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern. Some tools use verb-object naming like inspect-robots and normalize-url, while others are plain nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog, making the set feel inconsistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and does not feel bloated. However, the selection spans many unrelated concerns—URL parsing, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, HTTP status—so the set feels broader than a single focused purpose.
For a privacy-focused URL/HTTP utility set, there are notable gaps such as no redirect or header inspection, and for time utilities there is no timezone conversion tool. The surface covers basic atomic operations but lacks the cohesive lifecycle or workflow coverage that would make it feel complete.