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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not perform WHOIS or ownership enrichment, which sets an important boundary. However, it says nothing about side effects, return format, or how edge cases (invalid hostnames, URLs, JSON, timezone inputs) are handled.
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, straightforward sentence. It front-loads the primary action and the notable limitation (no WHOIS/ownership) with zero wasted words.
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?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the various input fields should be supplied or what the tool returns, and the connection between 'split a hostname' and the 'json'/'zone' parameters is unclear. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at the intended use.
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 each parameter already has a baseline definition. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname into labels, leaving their roles somewhat disconnected from the stated purpose.
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 a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not name sibling tools or mention how it relates to them, which prevents a perfect score.
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. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies it is not a WHOIS lookup tool, but no explicit conditions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
Timezone, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai tools overlap: timezone can replicate the other two by passing a zone name, and citation/normalize-url both return host/scheme information. The compatibility tool is also vague about what it classifies, adding more boundary ambiguity.
Names are all lowercase and hyphenated, but they mix bare nouns like citation and timezone with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hardcoded tz-asia-shanghai also breaks the otherwise readable pattern.
Eleven tools is not extreme as a raw count, but for a server named Asia/Shanghai clock only four tools are time-related. The remaining URL, HTTP, and JSON helpers make the surface feel bloated and misaligned with the stated purpose.
The time domain covers basic zone lookups, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai, but lacks offset/DST details or conversion. The unrelated web/json tools create a second half-baked domain with no clear coverage, so the overall set does not feel complete for any single purpose.