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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, network calls, or data handling. The phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is the only hint, but it is vague and does not explain whether the tool is read-only or has other behavioral implications.
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 extremely brief, which is good for conciseness, but it is poorly structured and includes an unclear qualifier ('without WHOIS or data'). It omits essential information about parameters and output, making the brevity a drawback rather than an asset.
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 description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the role of each parameter, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related tools. The agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 parameter descriptions are generic and mismatched to the tool's purpose. 'url' mentions normalization/citation, 'json' mentions validation and discarding, and 'timezone' is entirely unrelated. Only 'host' ('Public hostname') aligns with the stated purpose, but its description is minimal and does not explain how the parameters relate to splitting a hostname.
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 clear verb and object ('Split a hostname into labels'), but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous and the description does not clarify what 'labels' means or what the output format is. The tool name suggests a specific function, but the description alone gives only a partial understanding.
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 instead of its siblings, such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
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, but 'citation' and 'normalize-url' overlap in parsing URLs and returning host/scheme details, while 'compatibility' is vaguely described. Overall, the boundaries are mostly clear.
Names are consistently lowercase and hyphenated, but mix noun-style names ('timezone', 'citation') with verb-style names ('inspect', 'normalize', 'validate'). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making the naming style inconsistent.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a utility-focused server and within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect, though some could be consolidated.
The set covers URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, robots.txt, language tags, and JSON validation, but lacks broader web-development utilities like DNS lookups or header inspection. The domain is not fully defined, so some gaps are possible.