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 disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact beyond the schema — 'Page content is not stored' — which reassures agents about non-persistence. However, it says nothing about side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. 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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations — which raises the completeness burden. The description only addresses the URL aspect and completely ignores the json and zone parameters, leaving the agent uncertain whether those are separate validations or inputs to the citation logic. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool across all its capabilities.
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 (url, host, json, zone) already has a description in the schema. The description adds marginal value by linking the url parameter to the output, but it doesn't clarify how the json or zone parameters relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status.
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 ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings, and the tool name 'citation' is broad enough that the scope required some unpacking.
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 alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only extra sentence ('Page content is not stored') is a behavioral note, not usage direction.
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 target distinct resources like URLs, hostnames, robots.txt, timezones, and JSON. The main overlap is between citation and normalize-url, which both expose host information from a URL, and between timezone and utc-time when the requested zone is UTC. Descriptions are generally clear enough to disambiguate.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, and each tool has a distinct small purpose. A few could be consolidated, such as utc-time with timezone or citation with normalize-url, but the count is not excessive.
The server covers basic URL inspection, time retrieval, JSON validation, and word counting, but notable gaps exist such as URL validation, timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, and JSON formatting. The surface is more of a grab bag than a coherent full-featured utility domain.