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 the main behavior and implies a read-only transformation. However, it does not mention edge cases such as invalid hostnames, trailing dots, IDN handling, or whether the output is an array or some other structure. There are no annotations to supplement this.
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 focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the main action and a key exclusion efficiently.
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?
Despite the short description, the tool is not contextually complete because the parameter schema appears mismatched or copied from unrelated tools. An agent would not be able to reliably determine which parameters to use or what the correct input should be for splitting a hostname.
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 parameter descriptions are inconsistent and largely irrelevant. 'url' is described as a URL to normalize or cite, 'json' as JSON text to validate, and 'zone' as an IANA timezone name, which do not align with splitting a hostname into labels. Only 'host' seems plausibly relevant, but even its description is generic.
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 core operation: splitting a hostname into labels. It also explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data, which helps differentiate it from domain-information tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the expected input parameter or the exact output format.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The name and description imply a hostname-labeling use case, but no alternative tools are referenced and no conditions for selection are 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.
Most tools have distinct inputs and outputs, but citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, while timezone, tz-america-chicago, and utc-time all return current time. Descriptions clarify the differences, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog or citation.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is readable, but they mix verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog. There is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'America/Chicago clock' only four tools relate to time. The remaining seven URL, HTTP, robots, and JSON utilities are off-purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The time-related tools cover current time in Chicago, UTC, named IANA zones, and a zone list, so the clock core is usable. However, there is no timezone conversion or date arithmetic, and the unrelated utilities do not form a coherent broader domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete.