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 exist, and the description does not clarify side effects, data retention, or failure behavior; 'without WHOIS or data' is too ambiguous to count as meaningful transparency.
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 brief but includes a confusing clause ('without WHOIS or data') that consumes space without adding clarity, and the overall structure is too sparse to be effective.
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 lacks a proper hostname parameter, includes four irrelevant parameters, and has no output schema, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it or interpret results.
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?
The schema descriptions are unrelated to hostname splitting: 'url' says normalize, 'json' says validate, and 'timezone' says IANA timezone, leaving no meaningful semantics for the stated task.
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 operation ('split a hostname into labels'), but the qualifier 'without WHOIS or data' is vague and the parameter names don't reinforce the intended purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and despite sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json, there is no indication of how domain-shape differs or when it should be selected.
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 serve clearly distinct purposes (URL, time, JSON, robots, etc.), but 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with other classifications. Overall, the functions are separable.
Naming conventions are inconsistent, mixing hyphenated phrases (domain-shape, normalize-url) with plain words (citation, timezone), and using both nouns and verbs. This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls comfortably within the typical well-scoped range and does not feel excessive or thin.
The set covers a variety of utilities (URL, HTTP, time, JSON, robots) but lacks a clear cohesive domain, leaving gaps for common web-dev helpers like encoding or hashing. It feels like a random collection rather than a complete toolkit.