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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that no WHOIS/ownership lookup is performed, but it does not describe the output shape, error behavior, or whether it makes any network calls. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and the key limitation efficiently.
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?
This is a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers only one parameter's purpose and says nothing about return values or how the other inputs are used. An agent cannot confidently determine what the tool returns or whether to supply url, json, or zone for a given task.
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 adds meaning for the 'host' parameter (labels), but the parameters 'url', 'json', and 'zone' remain unexplained in relation to 'splitting a hostname', creating a semantic disconnect. It neither fully compensates for nor directly contradicts the schema.
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 operation ('split') on a clear resource ('hostname') and adds a non-goal exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which distinguishes it from WHOIS-style tools. However, it only covers the 'host' aspect and does not align with the other three parameters (url, json, zone), so the purpose is clear but incomplete relative to the schema.
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 phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies the tool is appropriate when only label splitting is needed and not enrichment, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give concrete 'use this vs. that' conditions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
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 overlap in the URL/HTTP space, especially citation and normalize-url both returning host/scheme information, with inspect-robots and status-catalog adding to the confusion. The timezone tools are distinct, but compatibility is too vague to place, and the overall set makes tool selection ambiguous.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-object commands like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are bare nouns like citation and timezone, or noun phrases like status-catalog and iana-zones. There is no consistent verb_noun convention or recognizable family pattern.
For a server advertised as 'Hex color to RGB,' 11 tools is far more than needed, and only hex-rgb actually matches that purpose. While 11 is not an extreme number in general, the unrelated utilities make the server feel bloated and mis-scoped.
The set has no coherent domain to assess against, spanning URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, robots.txt, and color conversion without covering any one area deeply. For the stated hex-to-RGB purpose it is technically complete, but for the apparent mixed utility scope there are clear gaps such as timezone conversion or URL encoding.