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, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify that no WHOIS/ownership data is returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose which input parameter (host vs url) is used, what the return value looks like, or how invalid hostnames are handled. The presence of irrelevant json and zone params is also left unexplained.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise without being a tautology, though it could sacrifice some brevity to include parameter guidance.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no explicit sibling context, the description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably know whether to pass 'host' or 'url', what the returned labels look like, or whether other parameters are ignored. This is a significant completeness gap for a moderately complex 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's word 'hostname' maps plausibly to the existing 'host' parameter, but it adds no semantics for the url, json, or zone parameters and does not clarify which fields are relevant to this specific tool.
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 ('Split') and resource ('hostname into labels'), and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause distinguishes it from enrichment tools. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly or describe the output shape, which keeps it from a 5.
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 the tool is for pure hostname parsing rather than enrichment, but no explicit alternatives or conditions are given. It is not misleading, but the guidance is only implicit.
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.
The timezone tools overlap heavily: `timezone` already supports named IANA zones, making `utc-time` and `tz-america-new-york` largely redundant. The URL tools also blur together (`citation` vs `normalize-url` both return host/scheme information), and `compatibility` is too vague to confidently distinguish from the other request-classification tools.
All names share a lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix conventions: verb-prefixed tools like `inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, and `validate-json` sit alongside noun phrases like `domain-shape`, `status-catalog`, and `utc-time`, plus single-word names like `timezone` and `citation`. The names are readable and predictable in format, but not in action pattern.
Eleven tools is not an extreme number, but the set is not well-scoped: it mixes time, URL normalization, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation concerns. The count feels like several small toolkits merged into one server rather than a focused tool collection where each tool clearly earns its place.
There is no coherent domain to call complete. As a clock server, it lacks timezone conversion, offsets, or date formatting; as a web utility server, it lacks common operations like fetching content or inspecting headers. Significant operations for either inferred purpose are missing, so agents would likely hit dead ends.