Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 states the core behavior and what it does not include, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid hostnames, empty input, handling of leading/trailing dots) or any side effects. No annotations are provided to add clarity.
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 and direct, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It fits in a single sentence and clearly communicates the primary action.
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 description is not complete in context because the parameter schema contains unrelated fields with mismatched descriptions. An agent cannot reliably determine which parameter to use for the hostname input, making the tool ambiguous in practice.
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?
The parameter descriptions are obviously mismatched: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json as 'JSON text to validate', and zone as 'IANA timezone name'—none of these align with a hostname-splitting tool. The only plausible parameter, host, is described as 'Public hostname' but the others are irrelevant and confusing.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: splitting a hostname into labels, and explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data. This differentiates it from related tools like normalize-url 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 a focused use case (hostname label splitting) and explicitly says it does not provide WHOIS or ownership data, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites.
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.
Each tool performs a distinct function: country lookup, URL inspection, robots.txt parsing, timezone conversion, and JSON validation. Even URL-related tools are clearly separated by their outputs and actions, so there is no meaningful overlap.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), some are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone), and one is an opaque abbreviation (cc-fr). A consistent verb-noun or noun-only convention would improve predictability.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number and stays within the typical well-scoped range. The tools cover several distinct utility areas, though the server's stated identity as 'ISO country FR' does not fully explain the broad collection.
The tool set appears to cover a handful of common web-development utilities, but the domain is not strongly defined. It lacks obvious related operations such as URL encoding/decoding, DNS lookup, or broader country data, so coverage feels partial rather than comprehensive.