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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: the tool does not provide WHOIS or ownership data, implying a local, read-only parse. However, it does not explain behavior for url, json, or zone inputs, nor does it describe output format or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 with no filler and front-loads the action. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' earns its place by setting expectations. It is appropriately concise, though somewhat sparse given the breadth of the input schema.
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, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description must do more to explain the invocation contract. It only covers hostname splitting and leaves the url, json, and zone parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass or what to expect in return.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how 'host' relates to the other accepted parameters. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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'), resource ('hostname'), and result ('labels'), and adds a useful exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url. However, the input schema exposes url, json, and zone parameters that the description does not account for, so the full purpose remains somewhat unclear.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description never mentions alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use normalize-url for URL normalization' or 'use validate-json for JSON validation'. An agent must infer selection solely from the tool name and schema.
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, tz-asia-tokyo, and utc-time all return current time with overlapping purposes, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The mix of time and URL tools under a clock server name further confuses selection.
Tool names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern mixes nouns (citation, timezone), verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url), and a special abbreviation (tz-asia-tokyo). The style is readable but not uniformly verb_noun.
11 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the server's apparent focus is unclear — half are time-related and half are URL/HTTP utilities. The count is not excessive, though the breadth feels unaligned with the server name.
The time domain covers current time, UTC, and timezone names, but lacks timezone conversion or date formatting. The URL utilities are a partial set with no page fetch, headers, or query handling, leaving notable gaps for a general web tool surface.