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 gives no information about side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or any behavioral guarantees beyond the basic splitting operation. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' offers a hint of what is excluded, but not what is included.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 is severely incomplete given the mismatch between the description and the input schema. The parameters appear copied from other tools (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url, timezone) and do not align with the stated purpose of splitting hostnames. This leaves the agent without sufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
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 input schema includes four properties (url, host, json, zone) but their descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' which is irrelevant to splitting a hostname. The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters affect the splitting operation, making the schema misleading.
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 clearly states the action ('Split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname), and it distinguishes itself by noting it does not include WHOIS or ownership data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url, though the action is specific enough.
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. The description only states what it does, without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.
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 have distinct purposes (URL inspection, time, status codes, JSON validation), but citation and normalize-url both deal with URL parts and could cause confusion. compatibility is also somewhat vague, though it appears to classify requests differently.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens (e.g., domain-shape, utc-time, validate-json), forming a consistent and predictable pattern across the entire set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server lacks a unified focus—it's a grab bag of utilities. While not excessive, the count feels high for the apparent scope, which is unclear and fragmented.
There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against. The server is labeled 'Language es' but only one tool (lang-es) relates to language, leaving many potential gaps. For a general utility server, it's missing obvious pairs like URL fetching or timezone listing beyond common names.