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?
There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses one key behavior (no WHOIS/ownership data), but given the 4 parameters (url, host, json, zone) it's unclear what side effects occur or what exactly gets validated or discarded beyond the json param's own description. The behavioral profile is thin.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence provides a clear action and exclusion without unnecessary detail. 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?
With 4 parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around parameter interplay (e.g., if multiple params are passed, which one wins?) and around output or examples. It's a minimal viable description but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.
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 all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds a bit of context by clarifying the overall scope, which is enough to keep the parameter semantics adequate and even strong.
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 clear action ('Split a hostname into labels') and a clear exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). It's specific enough to distinguish from a WHOIS lookup, though it doesn't name a sibling or alternative explicitly.
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 explains what the tool does not do (no WHOIS/ownership), which implies when to use it (simple labeling tasks), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide examples.
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.
The time-related tools (epoch-ms, utc-time, timezone, iana-zones) are distinguishable, but several URL tools overlap in input and output: citation and normalize-url both expose host/URL components, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. An agent could misselect between the URL inspection tools despite helpful descriptions.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: noun phrases like epoch-ms, utc-time, and status-catalog mix with imperative verbs like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. This inconsistency makes the naming style readable but unpredictable.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count on its own, but the set is not tightly scoped to the server's apparent identity of Unix epoch milliseconds; it mixes time, URL, robots, status code, and JSON utilities. This feels like a general utility grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.
For the time domain implied by the server name, there are no epoch-to-date conversions, formatting helpers, or timezone offset details, leaving obvious gaps. The URL/request utilities are similarly fragmentary, covering shape and status but not full content retrieval or more useful metadata, so the surface feels incomplete for any single stated purpose.