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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a negative constraint (no WHOIS/ownership) and does not mention side effects, required permissions, or output format. This is insufficient for transparency.
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 tool description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core action and a key exclusion. It is well-structured and easy to read. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.
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 not complete for the complexity of the tool. It does not explain the relationship between the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) and the splitting operation, nor does it specify which parameters are required (none are marked required). The mismatched parameter descriptions further undermine completeness.
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 largely mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—all irrelevant to splitting a hostname into labels. Only 'host' seems relevant, but its description is generic. The tool description does not clarify how the parameters should be used.
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 that the tool splits a hostname into labels and explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, the parameter list introduces some ambiguity about which input is used, slightly reducing clarity.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no context about typical use cases or 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.
Most tools have distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url overlap in URL parsing, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with citation's request classification.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, iana-zones) with verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). 'cc-gb' and 'compatibility' do not follow a clear pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and not overwhelming. The set is broad but each tool serves a distinct utility purpose, so the count feels acceptable.
The tools cover common web/network utilities like URL parsing, time zones, HTTP statuses, and JSON validation, but the domain is not clearly defined. Obvious companions such as a direct HTTP fetch or DNS/WHOIS lookup are missing.