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 burden. It describes the primary action (splitting) and what it omits (WHOIS/ownership), but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as side effects, validation behavior, or how the unrelated parameters (json, zone) factor into the operation. The description is too sparse to be transparent about the tool's actual behavior.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it is under-specified; it does not include necessary details about parameters or usage, so while it is concise, it does not earn its place fully as a standalone definition.
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 the tool has 4 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to combine the parameters, what the output format is, or when to prefer this tool over siblings. An agent would be left with too many unanswered questions to call it correctly.
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 has a description, but those descriptions are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, and the presence of 'json' and 'zone' parameters is unexplained in the context of splitting a hostname. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of cohesion with the tool's function.
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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clarifies what the tool does not do, which implicitly distinguishes it from tools that might provide that data. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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 implies a usage context: use this tool when you need to split hostnames and don't need WHOIS or ownership data. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tools, leaving the decision partially to inference. The guidance is present but not explicit.
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.
Several tools operate on URLs and return overlapping metadata (citation vs normalize-url vs compatibility), and timezone overlaps with tz-australia-sydney. While descriptions add detail, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for host/status or local-time tasks.
Tool names mix single nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog), and verb_noun commands (inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, making the surface feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'Australia/Sydney clock' the majority of tools are unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON utilities. The set would be better split into a clock server and a web-metadata server.
The time-related surface is reasonably complete with UTC, named timezone, Sydney time, and a zone catalog, but notable gaps remain such as timezone conversion and offset information. The URL/HTTP tools cover several metadata operations but lack obvious related operations, so overall domain coverage is uneven.