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?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait — that it performs no WHOIS or data lookup — which is a useful negative constraint. However, it does not mention the output format, error behavior, or whether it normalizes the hostname before splitting, and the mismatched parameters further obscure 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, compact sentence with a clear verb and object, making it easy to parse. The trailing 'or data' is slightly awkward, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.
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 low complexity of a hostname split, the description omits key context: which parameter to supply, the labeling scheme (e.g., split on dots), and the output shape. The severe parameter mismatch makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional documentation.
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?
Three of the four parameters are clearly mismatched: 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name' — these belong to sibling tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). Only 'host' (Public hostname) aligns with the stated purpose of splitting a hostname, making the parameter set actively misleading.
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 verb 'Split' and the resource 'a hostname into labels', and the negation 'without WHOIS or data' distinguishes it from lookup-based sibling tools like inspect-robots. The phrasing 'or data' is slightly vague, but the core operation is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or inspect-robots. It also fails to indicate which parameter is the primary input, leaving the agent to guess between 'host' and 'url'.
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 overlap in purpose: timezone, tz-europe-berlin, and utc-time all return current time, and citation/normalize-url both analyze URL components. 'compatibility' is too vague to distinguish from the other HTTP/classification tools.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent delimiter style, but the pattern mixes verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun phrases (citation, compatibility, status-catalog). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server is named as a clock and only four tools (timezone, tz-europe-berlin, utc-time, iana-zones) support that purpose. The rest are unrelated web/HTTP/JSON utilities, making the set poorly scoped.
For the clock domain, time lookup is covered but timezone conversion is missing. For the broader web/HTTP utilities hinted at by the other tools, the surface is incomplete and lacks a clear lifecycle or workflow, so agents would hit dead ends.