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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only one negative trait (no WHOIS/ownership data) and says nothing about what happens with url, json, or zone inputs, what output is produced, or whether the operation is side-effect-free. This is minimal and insufficient for a schema with four distinct parameter purposes.
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 sentence and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires more than one sentence to be usable by an agent.
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 completely inadequate for the tool's apparent complexity. It documents only the hostname-splitting behavior while the schema implies the tool also handles URL normalization, JSON validation, and timezone names. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent cannot reliably determine what to pass or what result to expect.
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 no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it only aligns with the 'host' parameter while ignoring url, json, and zone. It does not contradict the schema, but it also does not enhance it.
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 names a specific action ('split a hostname into labels') and a limitation ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but it only covers hostname processing. The input schema also accepts url, json, and zone parameters with distinct purposes (normalize/cite, validate, timezone), so the description severely under-represents the tool and may mislead an agent selecting it.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies some contrast with other domain tools, but it never states the condition for using this tool or what alternatives exist. No siblings are effectively provided either.
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 distinct outputs, but there is real overlap: http-404 is a subset of status-catalog, timezone overlaps utc-time, and citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all parse URLs in slightly different ways. The descriptions clarify intended uses, so an agent can usually pick correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp.
Names are all lowercase kebab-case, which provides a surface-level consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: single nouns, noun-noun compounds, and imperative verb-noun forms. This makes the naming scheme less predictable than a uniform verb_noun or noun-based convention.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the set is not tightly scoped: URL/HTTP tools are mixed with timezone, JSON, and compatibility tools. A more focused HTTP utility server could easily justify fewer or more cohesive tools.
The inferred domain is URL/HTTP inspection, and the set covers normalization, status codes, and robots, but it lacks obvious related operations such as HTTP headers, redirects, or URL decoding. The presence of unrelated time and JSON tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than deliberately complete.