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 adds a useful behavioral note: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' This discloses a side effect beyond the basic purpose. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does not explain what happens with the host, json, or zone inputs or whether any validation is performed.
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 concise, with two short sentences and no wasted words. The primary function is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about dropping query/fragment is second. However, the brevity contributes to the omission of important schema-related context.
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 incomplete for a tool with a four-parameter schema and no output schema. It only explains the url behavior, leaving the host, json, and zone parameters unexplained and thus inscrutable. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool for non-URL inputs or predict the full return shape.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description creates confusion rather than clarity. The description says 'host' is part of the return value, while the schema defines 'host' as an input parameter. It adds no meaning for the json and zone parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's unusual polymorphism.
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 origin, host, and path for a URL.' However, the input schema includes three additional parameters (host, json, zone) that the description never mentions, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The core URL-normalization purpose is evident, but the mismatch with the schema prevents a higher score.
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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the purpose statement.
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.