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. It discloses only that WHOIS and ownership data are absent, but it does not describe the return format, side effects, how the multiple parameters are treated, or any processing behaviors beyond splitting a hostname.
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 single sentence is lean and front-loads the core operation. It earns its place, but it is so brief that it leaves significant functional gaps; still, conciseness itself is well handled.
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 tool has four optional parameters with no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the hostname-splitting aspect, leaving an agent unable to determine the purpose of url, json, and zone, or what result to expect.
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 input schema already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description hints that 'host' is the relevant input for splitting, but adds no further semantic detail about how url, json, or zone relate to the described behavior.
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 names a specific operation, 'split a hostname into labels', and clarifies it provides no WHOIS or ownership data. However, the input schema includes four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the description does not explain how these fit the stated purpose, making the overall tool scope unclear.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' partially sets expectations, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or mention of a sibling tool for comparison.
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 outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both return host information, timezone/utc-time/iana-zones all revolve around time, and domain-shape/punycode-ok both target hostnames. An agent would need to read descriptions carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
Naming style is inconsistent: some names are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), some are nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), and some are quirky compounds (punycode-ok, iana-zones). The consistent lowercase/hyphen formatting is the only pattern.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the server is named for punycode host checking while many tools are unrelated URL, time, and JSON utilities. The set feels padded rather than deliberately scoped.
The tool surface has no coherent domain to be complete against: a punycode host checker would need at least IDN conversion or comparison, while the URL/time/JSON utilities appear as unrelated extras. Significant coverage gaps would likely force agents to combine or externalize work.