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?
The description states the core behavior (splitting hostnames) and exclusions (no WHOIS), but the parameter descriptions are misleading (e.g., 'json' for JSON validation, 'zone' for timezone). This makes the actual expected inputs and outputs unclear, so an agent cannot predict how the tool will behave.
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 itself is concise, but the schema includes four irrelevant parameters with lengthy descriptions, adding unnecessary clutter. The overall structure is misleading because the parameter set does not align with the stated function.
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 tool is described as splitting a hostname, but the schema lacks a meaningful hostname parameter. Instead, it includes unrelated parameters that suggest other tools. Key information about the expected input format and output is missing, making the definition incomplete and potentially harmful for an agent.
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?
All four parameter descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' mentions normalization/citation, 'host' is generic, 'json' refers to validation, and 'zone' refers to timezones. None of these clearly relate to splitting a hostname into labels, and there is no parameter for the actual hostname to be processed. The schema is effectively useless.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose ('Split a hostname into labels') and even notes what it does not do (WHOIS/ownership). However, the parameter definitions are completely unrelated to this purpose, which undermines the clarity and could confuse an agent about what the tool actually does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a simpler alternative, but no specific sibling tools are referenced, and no conditions for selection are provided.
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.
Some tools have overlapping concerns: citation and normalize-url both parse URLs and return host/scheme, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time. compatibility is also vague, making its relationship to the other tools unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphen separators and mostly use noun phrases, with a few verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, though the set covers a broad mix of URL, HTTP, time, and JSON utilities rather than a single focused domain.
The set covers common inspection tasks (URLs, robots.txt, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validity), but it lacks deeper operations like URL content retrieval, ISO duration conversion/parsing beyond shape, or more comprehensive HTTP status/request details.