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 behavioral disclosure. It discloses only the absence of WHOIS/ownership data, while the schema implies other behaviors (e.g., JSON validation with results 'discarded after the check', URL normalization/citation) that the description completely omits, leaving an incoherent behavioral picture.
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 a single short sentence with the main verb front-loaded, so it is technically concise. However, the brevity sacrifices essential scope information, and the one sentence does not earn its place because it misaligns with the actual parameter set.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns (labels array? delimiter behavior?), how each parameter is used, or why unrelated parameters like 'json' and 'zone' exist in a hostname-splitting 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how 'url', 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname into labels, but the schema already documents each parameter individually.
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 action ('Split a hostname into labels'), but this conflicts with the input schema, whose parameters cover URL normalization, JSON validation, and timezone names. The scope is therefore unclear and potentially misleading; the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' caveat does not reconcile the mismatch.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the exclusion 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which tells an agent what the tool does not do, but never when to select it or what its relationship to sibling tools is.
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.
Several tools occupy overlapping URL/time territory: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all parse hostnames, while timezone and utc-time both give current time. The descriptions help distinguish them, but compatibility and hex-16 are vague enough that an agent could struggle to select them confidently.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun, while citation, compatibility, status-catalog, and timezone are noun-only. There is no predictable verb_noun scheme, but the readable kebab-case style prevents it from feeling chaotic.
11 tools is within the normal 3-15 range and the server covers several small utility subdomains. However, a few tools like hex-16 and compatibility feel tangential or underdeveloped, making the set slightly less cohesive than ideal.
The set covers a reasonable range of stateless web/request utilities: URL parsing, HTTP status, robots inspection, time, and JSON validation. Gaps exist, such as no way to inspect query parameters or request headers, and the time utilities feel disconnected from the URL-focused tools, so the overall surface is moderate rather than complete.