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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does disclose a negative behavior ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but it fails to state what the tool actually returns, whether it makes network calls, or how it handles the inputs. The mismatch between the hostname-split claim and the json/zone parameters further obscures expected behavior.
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 concise sentence with no filler and front-loads the core verb and object. It is efficiently written, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of usefulness, which is captured in the other dimensions.
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 has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description addresses only a narrow hostname-splitting scenario. It does not explain the role of json or zone, how the inputs relate to one another, or what result to expect. An agent receiving this description would have almost no basis for correctly calling the tool with the proper parameter set.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning that connects the parameters to the operation. In fact, it creates confusion: the description mentions only hostname splitting, while the schema describes URL normalization, JSON validation, and IANA timezone, none of which are reconciled with the stated purpose. An agent cannot infer how to populate url, host, json, or zone from the description.
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 ('Split') and resource ('a hostname'), and adds a scoping note about excluding WHOIS/ownership data, which is better than a tautology. However, the described operation ('split a hostname') does not align with the broad parameter set (url, host, json, zone), and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, leaving the tool's intended scope ambiguous.
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 alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The description only implies it might be used for hostname splitting, but fails to explain why the json or zone parameters exist, leaving an agent without direction on when to invoke this tool.
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.
Several tools cluster around related concerns: citation and normalize-url both work with URLs, and timezone/utc-time/iso-ordinal all deal with time. Descriptions are usually enough to tell them apart, but 'compatibility' is vague and could easily be confused with status-catalog or citation.
Names mix noun phrases like timezone and status-catalog with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hyphenated lowercase style is consistent, but there is no predictable verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is not an unreasonable number for a general utility server, but the set feels like a kitchen-sink collection rather than a focused toolkit. Given the server name 'ISO ordinal day', most of the tools are outside the apparent purpose.
There is no single coherent domain to assess, and each area is only thinly covered: URL tools lack encoding/decoding, time tools lack conversions between formats, and JSON support stops at validation. This makes the surface feel incomplete for almost any intended workflow.