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 provides no information about side effects, permissions, or data handling. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, performs network calls, or modifies any state. The 'without WHOIS' phrase could be interpreted as a behavior constraint, but it is too vague to be informative. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it fails to disclose any behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the primary function in a few words. It is not verbose or redundant. The short length is appropriate for the simple purpose stated, though it sacrifices clarity around parameters. In terms of structure, it is front-loaded with the action ('Split a hostname') and immediately clarifies a limitation ('without WHOIS or data ownership').
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 severely incomplete given the mismatched parameters and lack of output specification. An agent cannot determine how the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the 'hostname to labels' operation, what the expected output format is, or whether all parameters are required (since none are marked required). The description leaves crucial context missing, making the tool difficult to use correctly without external information.
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 grossly mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' (unrelated to splitting hostnames), 'json' as 'JSON text to validate' (unrelated), and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name' (unrelated). Only 'host' ('Public hostname') aligns with the purpose, but its description is shallow and does not clarify the expected format or relationship to the other parameters. The descriptions actively mislead rather than clarify, providing no meaningful semantic value.
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 core purpose is stated clearly: 'Split a hostname into labels' and the qualifier 'without WHOIS or data ownership' adds context about what the tool does not do. However, the parameter descriptions (URL, JSON, timezone) are unrelated to this purpose, which creates confusion about the actual input expected. The purpose sentence itself is specific enough, but the mismatched parameter descriptions slightly obscure the intent.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or data ownership' hints at a use case boundary (e.g., not for ownership lookups), but it does not mention sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it explain scenarios where domain-shape is preferred. No concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
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 clearly distinct outputs: URL metadata, URL normalization, hostname labels, robots inspection, HTTP status catalog, time lookups, JSON validation, and hex encoding. The main ambiguity is between citation and normalize-url, which both return host/scheme information, and between timezone and utc-time, though the descriptions help clarify their different outputs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, giving a surface-level consistency. However, the set mixes nouns like citation and timezone, verb-object forms like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and the unusual hex-ok, so there is no consistent naming pattern.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the well-scoped range. The tools span URL, time, and data utility categories without feeling redundant, though the breadth suggests a general-purpose utility server rather than a tightly focused one.
The set covers common URL, time, and simple data-validation needs, but the overall domain is broad and somewhat unclear. Obvious companion operations are missing, such as hex decoding, timezone conversion, or more detailed request inspection beyond the vague compatibility tool.