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 only states a negative property (no WHOIS/ownership data) and does not mention side effects, input handling, validation behavior, or return format. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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?
For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what happens when multiple parameters are supplied, whether json is truly discarded, or how zone and url relate to the hostname-splitting operation.
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 parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each field adequately.
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. It also distinguishes the tool from WHOIS/ownership-related tools by explicitly excluding that data. However, the description does not clearly accommodate all four input parameters (url, json, zone), so the scope is not fully aligned with 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling comparison or exclusion criteria are present. The description implies a narrow use case (splitting hostnames) but does not explain how the other parameters fit or when each is appropriate.
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 target distinct concerns: timezone lookups, URL normalization, JSON validation, and robots.txt inspection are clearly separate. The only real overlap is citation vs. normalize-url, both of which extract host/scheme info from a URL, and iana-zones vs. timezone vs. utc-time could be slightly confusing in a timezone context.
All names use lowercase hyphenated style, which is readable, but they mix noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-led phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count, but the set is not well-scoped to the server's stated IANA Zones identity. Only three tools clearly relate to timezones, while the rest cover unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities, making the count feel padded rather than purpose-built.
For a timezone-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it offers common names, current time, and UTC, but no comprehensive zone list, offset information, or timezone conversion. The URL and JSON helpers are similarly one-off utilities with no broader workflow coverage, leaving notable gaps in the apparent domain.