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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a useful limitation — the tool is purely syntactic and returns no WHOIS or ownership information — which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the operation is pure, output structure, or handling of invalid hostnames.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and the key limitation, earning every word. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only explains hostname splitting. It does not clarify which parameters are used, why the other parameters exist, what the return value looks like, or edge-case behavior. An agent is left guessing how to call it correctly.
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-specific meaning, such as clarifying that 'host' is the primary input or how 'url', 'json', and 'zone' relate to the split operation. It neither hurts nor meaningfully improves on the schema.
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'), a specific resource ('hostname'), and a precise result ('into labels'). It also explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which distinguishes it from potential domain-data tools. Even without naming siblings, the scope is unambiguous.
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 description implies the tool is for hostname label extraction but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond the WHOIS/ownership note. Sibling names are effectively unusable as context, and no alternative tool is named.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all dissect URLs/hostnames, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status reporting. compatibility is too vague to disambiguate, so an agent could easily pick the wrong URL-analysis tool.
All names are lowercase and hyphen-separated, which is readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun while citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog are nouns. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'JSON Check' only validate-json is on-topic. The remaining nine are unrelated URL, HTTP, and time utilities, making the toolset feel like a grab bag rather than a scoped set.
As a JSON-checking server it is severely incomplete: only a boolean validity check is offered, with no schema validation, formatting, or JSON-path operations. As a general URL/HTTP utility it also lacks HTTP body access, redirect handling, and timezone conversion, so common workflows will hit dead ends.