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 is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It states the split operation and a negative scope, but says nothing about input handling, return shape, whether URL normalization occurs, or what happens with the optional json/zone parameters. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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; the core operation appears immediately and the clarifying exclusion is compact. It earns its place and is appropriately concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain behavior and return values. It only says labels are produced and WHOIS data is absent, leaving an agent unsure which of four optional parameters to pass and what the tool returns. The schema's unrelated parameters (url, json, zone) are not reconciled with the stated purpose.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond aligning 'hostname' with the 'host' parameter; it doesn't clarify how url, json, or zone relate to the stated purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('hostname') and states a clear exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), making the core purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nanoid-shape or normalize-url, but the function is clear 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?
The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a limitation and suggests the tool is for label splitting only, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings or names an alternative. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
Several tools overlap: citation and normalize-url both return URL origin/host information, while timezone and utc-time both provide current time. The descriptions help separate most tools, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with classification or request-checking tools.
Names use lowercase hyphenation and are generally readable, but they mix verb-led forms like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json with noun-led forms like domain-shape, status-catalog, and utc-time. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'Nano ID shape check' the scope feels diffuse, with URL, time, JSON, and HTTP status utilities included. Several tools do not clearly earn their place under that stated purpose.
The server claims a narrow Nano ID focus, yet only one tool directly supports it, while URL, JSON, time, and robots checks are shallow one-offs. There are no tools for generating or custom-validating Nano IDs, and URL handling stops at normalization without redirects or deeper request inspection.