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 of behavioral disclosure. It states a negative constraint (no WHOIS/ownership data), but doesn't mention side effects, error behavior, or the nature of the operation (read-only). Minimal transparency.
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 sentence that immediately states the action and a key constraint. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to splitting a hostname, which parameter to use, or what the output format is. Agents would be uncertain about invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't indicate which parameter is primary or how they interact. With high schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action: split a hostname into labels, and adds a constraint that it does not include WHOIS or ownership data. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from potential WHOIS-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly reference siblings.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools like normalize-url or inspect-robots. The agent is left without direction on selection.
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.
Tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-asia-singapore' overlap in purpose, though the latter is location-specific. Similarly, 'normalize-url' and 'inspect-robots' both relate to URLs but serve different functions. Overall, most tools are distinguishable but a few could cause selection ambiguity.
Names are highly inconsistent: some are verb phrases (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'), some are nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'iana-zones'), and there's no unified pattern. Hyphenation is used but not systematically, and the mix of imperative and descriptive naming makes the set feel arbitrary.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a multi-purpose utility server. However, the set feels padded with niche tools like 'tz-asia-singapore' while lacking broader coverage, making the count slightly high for the apparent scope.
The tools cover disparate domains (URLs, timezones, JSON, HTTP status) without forming a coherent service. For a clock/timezone server, there are redundant tools but no common operations like list all timezones or convert between zones. For a URL utility, missing fetch or parse variants. The domain is unclear, leading to significant gaps.