Skip to main content
Glama

UTC hour

domain-shape

Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
zoneNoIANA timezone name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the meaning of 'without WHOIS or data'. The tool's behavior is not transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but includes irrelevant or confusing text ('without WHOIS or data') that detracts from clarity. It is a single sentence, but the content is not well focused.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does not explain what output the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what 'labels' means in this context. Given the mismatched parameter descriptions, the tool is not fully specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes four parameters, but their descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'json' for validating JSON, 'zone' for timezone). These appear to be copied from other tools and do not clarify how they relate to splitting a hostname.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'split a hostname into labels', which is a specific verb and resource. However, the trailing phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is confusing and potentially misleading.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. No use cases, conditions, or examples are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools operate on URLs (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, compatibility) with overlapping inputs but different outputs, and hour-utc vs utc-time are close in purpose. Descriptions mostly clarify the distinction, but an agent could easily select the wrong URL-analysis tool without deeper inspection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix single nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated compounds that alternate verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) and noun-first (status-catalog, domain-shape). No consistent verb_noun or action-object pattern is present.

Tool Count3/5

Eleven tools is within a reasonable count range, but the set spans time, URL parsing, HTTP status, and JSON validation with no unifying scope. Several tools feel like a grab-bag rather than a focused server, so the count is not fully earned.

Completeness2/5

The time tools lack basic conversions or formatting options, and the URL tools have no clear workflow for fetching, parsing, and classifying content. For the apparent 'web/URL utilities plus time' scope, there are significant gaps that would force agents to work around missing functionality.