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 behavioral disclosure. It does tell the agent that no WHOIS/ownership lookup happens, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only guarantees, return format, or how the other input types (url, json, zone) are handled. The description is too thin to be transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It wastes no words and states the essential operation immediately.
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 not complete enough for confident invocation given a 4-parameter schema with unrelated-looking optional inputs and no output schema. An agent cannot determine what parameters to pass, what the result looks like, or how the json and zone fields fit into a hostname-splitting 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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description only discusses 'hostname', which maps to the 'host' parameter. It never explains how 'url', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname into labels, leaving the agent uncertain which parameters are relevant and how they interact.
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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels', and adds a useful scope limitation with 'without WHOIS or ownership data.' However, it doesn't reconcile this with the input schema's extra params (url, json, zone), which slightly weakens 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' is a scope constraint, not a usage directive, so an agent gets no explicit signal about when to prefer this tool.
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 have overlapping purposes: citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs and return host/scheme information, while compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The time tools are distinct but cluster together, making the overall set boundary-unclear for an agent.
Tool names mix single nouns like citation and timezone with hyphenated noun-noun forms like domain-shape and status-catalog, plus verb-noun forms like normalize-url and validate-json. There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but several are extremely narrow utilities such as port-443 and utc-time. The count is not excessive, though the set feels slightly padded with trivial helpers.
The server seems to target a loose mix of web/HTTP, URL, time, and JSON utilities, and covers those niches at a basic level. However, core HTTP operations like fetching headers or inspecting responses are absent, and the overall domain is unclear enough that significant gaps are easy to imagine.