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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what data is discarded. The description's claim that it splits hostnames contradicts the schema's inclusion of JSON validation, timezone, and URL parameters, making the tool's actual behavior opaque and potentially misleading.
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 very short, but it is under-specified and lacking crucial structure. It does not even form a complete sentence, and it omits information about what the tool returns or how outputs are structured, making it inadequate rather than concise.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling context, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A complete description would need to explain the relationship between hostname splitting and the diverse parameters, as well as the return format.
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?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions themselves are generic and disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name' do not logically follow from 'Split a hostname into labels'. The description adds no meaning that clarifies how these parameters should be used together.
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 'Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data' is almost a tautology of the tool name 'domain-shape' and ambiguous about what the tool actually does. It also does not align with the input schema, which contains 4 parameters including 'json' and 'zone' that have no clear relation to splitting a hostname. An agent cannot reliably infer the tool's real function from this description.
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, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description is too vague to inform an agent about appropriate invocation contexts. The sibling tool names were not provided, so no comparative context exists to differentiate usage.
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 overlap in the URL/host/status space: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all return host-like information, and compatibility is vague. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could still misselect when looking for a specific URL metric.
Names mix single-word nouns like citation and timezone, noun phrases like domain-shape and status-catalog, and verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. All use kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server. Most tools have narrow, distinct purposes, though a few time-related and URL-related tools feel somewhat redundant.
The set covers URL normalization, JSON/JWT inspection, robots, HTTP status, and time utilities, but the lack of a single cohesive domain leaves noticeable gaps. For example, there is no generic URL validation, no HTTP header inspection, and the compatibility tool is underspecified.