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 burden of behavior disclosure. It does reveal one useful trait: the tool will not perform WHOIS or ownership lookups, implying a local, read-only operation. However, it does not explain how inputs like url, json, or zone are processed, what 'labels' means in terms of output, or how invalid inputs are handled.
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 that gets to the point immediately: 'Split a hostname into labels'. There is zero wordiness and the differentiator comes right after the verb. It is appropriately terse for a simple operation, though the under-specification of parameters limits its helpfulness.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable use. It fails to explain how the url, json, and zone parameters relate to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname, or what the returned labels look like. An agent would struggle to determine which parameter to supply and what output 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 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description's term 'hostname' maps loosely to the 'host' parameter but ignores url, json, and zone entirely, creating potential confusion about which parameter is actually the input to split. Still, the individual schema descriptions already document each parameter, so the description does not need to repeat them; it just misses the chance to clarify input selection.
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 verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels', which clearly identifies the core operation. The clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data' also differentiates it from ownership-lookup tools, giving it a distinct identity. However, the description does not reconcile this purpose with the four schema parameters (url, host, json, zone), leaving some ambiguity about what exactly gets split.
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 this tool is for syntactic parsing only and should not be used when ownership information is needed — an implicit when-not-to-use hint. But it does not name alternatives, specify positive selection criteria, or explain how to choose among the four parameters. Guidance is present but only implied, not explicit.
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 different outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname shapes, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all cover time. A couple of vague names like compatibility and citation could also cause initial misselection.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which gives a visual consistency, but they mix verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and timezone. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to be considered strongly consistent.
11 tools is within a reasonable range and none feels redundant, but the collection spans several unrelated concerns such as URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, and robots.txt. It is slightly broad, though not bloated.
The set covers common lookups like URL normalization, status codes, time, and JSON validation, but there is no coherent domain that ties these together. Obvious adjacent operations such as redirect checking, response header inspection, or rate-limit-specific details are missing, leaving an agent with possible dead ends.