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?
No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose any side effects, though the schema hints that json input is validated and discarded. The tool's actual behavior beyond splitting hostnames is left opaque.
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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant wording, though it sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
With no output schema and only a one-line description, the tool does not explain what result is returned, how the optional parameters affect execution, or when the tool is appropriate. An agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret this tool based on the provided context.
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 schema covers each parameter with a short description, but the tool description adds no meaning to how url, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose. Some parameter descriptions (e.g., url: normalize or cite) do not align with splitting a hostname, leaving the semantics confusing.
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 action (split a hostname into labels) but does not explain how the url, json, and zone parameters relate to that action, nor what the output looks like. It does not sufficiently distinguish this from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.
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 about when to select this tool over the available alternatives such as normalize-url, iana-zones, or validate-json. The description lacks any context about expected input combinations or prerequisites.
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 in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname details, while timezone and utc-time both provide time-related data. This creates ambiguity and potential misselection.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated descriptors (domain-shape, normalize-url), and odd forms like sha1-ok. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or naming convention.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the collection feels like an arbitrary bundle of unrelated utilities rather than a focused server, making the count seem heavier than justified.
The tools span URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and hashing, but no coherent domain emerges. As a result, it is unclear what workflow is being supported, and obvious coverage gaps exist for any single intended purpose.