Skip to main content
Glama

normalize-url

Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that query strings and fragments are dropped, which is a real behavior beyond the basic operation. However, it does not explain side effects, error cases, or why unrelated parameters like json and zone exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and four optional parameters, yet the description only covers the URL-origin/host/path output. It does not define the return shape, behavior when url is absent, or what json, host, and zone parameters are for, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already document each parameter. The tool description does not need to repeat them. Still, it fails to clarify how host, json, and zone relate to the stated URL-normalization purpose, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly identifies the core normalize/parse operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the behavior is concrete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or expected inputs. The only implied usage is 'for a URL,' and no exclusions or sibling-tool branching are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.