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?
There are no annotations (e.g., readOnly, destructive) and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to mention whether the operation is safe, what it outputs, or if it has any side effects.
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 very short and to the point. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a small amount of context but is not overly long. The structure is simple and easy to parse.
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?
Even though the tool is simple, the description is not complete because the parameters are entirely mismatched with the stated purpose, leaving the agent unsure how to invoke it. There is also no mention of the expected output format (e.g., list of labels). The description fails to provide enough context for correct usage.
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?
The description adds no meaning to any parameter. The parameters (url, host, json, timezone) are unrelated to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname into labels. The schema-level descriptions are generic and also mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url). The parameter semantics are completely unclear and inconsistent with the tool's 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 the action 'Split a hostname into labels', which is a specific verb and resource. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a differentiation, though no sibling tool explicitly includes that data. The purpose is understandable.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a contrast but does not name a competing tool, and no sibling tools are referenced. There is no clear usage context or decision criteria.
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 are mostly distinct, but `timezone` and `tz-europe-amsterdam` overlap heavily, and `domain-shape`/`normalize-url` both inspect hostnames, creating potential ambiguity.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but they mix noun labels (`citation`, `status-catalog`, `timezone`) with verb-action names (`inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, `validate-json`), so no consistent pattern emerges.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the set combines URL inspection, timezone, and JSON validation unrelated to the apparent clock/time focus, making the count feel padded.
For a clock/time server, it provides current UTC, named timezone, and Europe/Amsterdam time, but lacks conversion or formatting operations; the unrelated URL/JSON tools do not fill that gap.