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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not return WHOIS or ownership data but gives no information about side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is safe but sparsely informative.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four dissimilar parameters. The single sentence could be expanded in a focused way without becoming verbose.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four unrelated-looking parameters, the description is not enough for an agent to confidently select and call this tool. It doesn't clarify which parameter is primary, what the return value is, or how the other parameters are used.
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 documents each parameter's basic role. However, the description adds almost no parameter context: it doesn't explain how 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname, nor which are relevant for that operation. The mismatch between these parameters and the stated purpose is confusing.
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 action 'split a hostname into labels' and mentions it excludes WHOIS or ownership data, which distinguishes it from domain-enrichment tools. However, it does not mention the actual URL/host parameters or the variance in other properties, making the scope less clear than it could be.
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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The description only implies a narrow purpose (label splitting) without any exclusions or selection criteria.
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.
json-ok and validate-json are effectively duplicate JSON validity checks, and several URL/HTTP tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) have overlapping hostname/status concerns. compatibility is too vague to distinguish reliably from the other HTTP-related tools.
The names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, timezone), imperative verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and adjective constructions (json-ok). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, and the same JSON operation is called two different names.
Eleven tools is not inherently too large, but the set is not tightly scoped to the apparent 'JSON validity' purpose and bundles URL, robots, HTTP, and time utilities. The duplicate JSON validation tools also make the count feel padded rather than earning their places.
There are useful clusters for URL inspection, HTTP status, time, and JSON validity, but no clear workflow connects them and compatibility remains unexplained. Within a broad safe-web/utility interpretation the basics are present, yet obvious helpers such as header inspection or a single unified JSON validator are missing.