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?
The description discloses only that it works 'without WHOIS or data', but it fails to explain the tool's actual behavior or side effects. More critically, the parameter descriptions in the schema are unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' for a hostname-splitting tool), which is highly misleading for agents.
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 concise, but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is vague and disrupts the clarity of the sentence. It could be more effectively structured by omitting that ambiguous clause.
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 an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the 'split hostname' function, and the mismatched parameter descriptions create confusion. The tool lacks any explanation of expected input format or output.
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 description does not explain what the parameters (url, host, json, zone) mean for this tool. The schema descriptions are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose, adding no meaningful context. An agent cannot infer which parameter is the hostname to split.
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'), which is specific and understandable. However, the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' adds ambiguity, detracting slightly from the clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering URL analysis, time/date, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation with no significant overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention, matching the style across the entire set with no mixed casing or underscores.
The set of 11 tools is reasonable for a general-purpose utility server, providing a moderate breadth without feeling bloated or sparse.
The domain appears to be 'web developer utilities,' and while it covers common needs like URL handling, time, HTTP status, and JSON, some expected utilities (e.g., base64, HTML escaping) are missing, making it slightly incomplete.