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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the output composition and explicitly discloses that query and fragment are dropped. It does not cover invalid-URL handling or the effect of the extra optional parameters, but the core behavior is transparent.
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. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the dropped-component detail is stated efficiently. Every sentence contributes.
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 explains return values and dropped components, but it is incomplete relative to the schema: four optional parameters exist, none are required, and the description only addresses URL behavior. An agent cannot determine whether passing json, zone, or host is valid, what happens with no arguments, or the exact output structure.
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 applies. The description adds no new meaning for host, json, or zone, and while it clarifies what happens to the url input (query/fragment dropped), that is an operational detail rather than parameter-level semantics. It does not explain which parameter to supply or whether multiple parameters are allowed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('a URL'), and lists exact output components: origin, host, and path. It also states that query and fragment are dropped, which clearly distinguishes it from URL-related siblings like citation or inspect-robots and from unrelated tools like timezone or validate-json.
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 implies the tool is for URL normalization when origin/host/path are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or pointers to sibling tools.
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.