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 present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no WHOIS or ownership data will be returned, which is a meaningful constraint. But it doesn't describe output format, edge cases (e.g., empty hostname, ports, punycode), or whether the input is normalized before splitting.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and a key limitation efficiently. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage hint, but as-is it's appropriately tight.
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?
For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'labels' means as a return value, which parameter to pass, or why 'json' and 'zone' exist in the schema. An agent would need additional inference to call this reliably.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description, but the tool description adds no mapping between its 'hostname' operation and the four optional properties. An agent cannot tell whether to provide 'host', 'url', or something else, and the unrelated 'json' and 'zone' parameters are not reconciled with the stated purpose.
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 verb+resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also adds a clarifying exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data') which helps distinguish it from enrichment-oriented domain tools. However, it doesn't reference sibling tools or explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it loses the last point.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs a WHOIS/ownership lookup, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'without WHOIS' hints at a use case, but it's never stated which input parameter (url, host, json, or zone) should be passed. The agent is left to infer the intended 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but timezone/utc-time both return current time and citation/normalize-url both inspect URL components. Compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog, though descriptions provide some help.
All tool names use lowercase-hyphenated style, but they mix noun labels (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-object actions (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). This mixed semantic pattern makes naming less predictable despite the consistent formatting.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but a server titled 'Leap year check' carries only one leap-year tool among unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is a major scope mismatch for the stated purpose.
The set lacks a coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess: for a leap-year server there is only the bare check, and as a general utility server there are obvious omissions like date arithmetic or more detailed HTTP capabilities. Agents would hit dead ends beyond the narrow included functions.