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 does disclose a key negative trait (no WHOIS/ownership data), but it omits other behaviors suggested by the schema, such as JSON validation and discarding the input after the check. The description is too narrow relative to the actual parameter surface.
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 economical sentence with the core action front-loaded and a useful exclusion appended. It contains no fluff, though it errs on the side of being too terse to fully inform the 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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, how the parameters interact, or when this tool is appropriate. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly in an unfamiliar context.
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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how url, json, or zone relate to splitting a hostname. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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'. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' usefully differentiates it from ownership-related tools. However, the presence of url, json, and zone parameters in the schema is not explained, so the full purpose remains somewhat 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no use-case scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent gets only the action, not the decision context.
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 are individually distinct, but there are overlapping clusters: citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all inspect URLs, and iana-zones/timezone/utc-time/iso-week all deal with time. The descriptions help separate them, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some hyphenated noun phrases (domain-shape, status-catalog), and some are verb-object commands (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is not well-scoped: the 'ISO week number' label covers only one of these tools, and the rest are a collection of unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. It feels like a grab bag rather than a focused server.
There is no coherent domain to assess against. The ISO week number tool stands alone with no date-input or conversion companions, and the URL/time/JSON tools cover only narrow slices of their respective domains. Obvious gaps exist in nearly every cluster.