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?
Beyond stating it does not provide WHOIS/ownership data, the description discloses no other behavioral aspects such as output format, error handling, or side effects. There are no annotations to supplement this, so the agent is left with minimal insight into what happens when the tool is called.
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, succinct sentence without filler. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or output, which would be helpful given the tool has four parameters. Still, the brevity is a positive attribute.
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 four parameters and a non-obvious operation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the expected output (e.g., a list of labels), how the parameters are used, or any constraints. This forces the agent to guess or fall back on trial and error, making the tool unreliable 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?
The schema descriptions for url, host, json, and zone are generic and appear copied from other tools (e.g., json is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), which does not align with splitting a hostname into labels. The tool description itself does not explain how these parameters map to the operation, leaving the agent confused about which parameter to provide.
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' and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which helps differentiate from potential sibling tools that provide ownership info. However, it does not clarify how the listed parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the splitting operation, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being operated on.
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 like normalize-url or validate-json. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The absence of any usage context makes it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., timezone vs. normalize-url). The only minor overlap is between 'timezone' and 'tz-europe-madrid', but they differ in generality (any named zone vs. a fixed zone).
All tool names follow the same lowercase, hyphen-separated pattern (e.g., 'tz-europe-madrid', 'utc-time', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb usage.
11 tools is a reasonable number. The set includes several non-clock utilities (URL, JSON, robots) that broaden scope beyond the server's name, but the count itself is not excessive or too sparse.
For a clock/time server, core operations are covered: UTC time, named timezone, and a specific fixed zone. The 'iana-zones' tool aids discovery, though a full zone list or conversion functionality is missing. Extra web/JSON tools are unrelated but not a defect.