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 gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, error conditions, or output format. The negative statement 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous and does not clarify what the tool actually returns.
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 short and uses a standard verb-object structure, but the extraneous and unclear 'without WHOIS or data' detracts from precision, and no structured breakdown of behavior is given.
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 mismatch between the description and the parameters, the tool's intended use is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain about required inputs and expected outputs.
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 lists four parameters with descriptions unrelated to hostname splitting (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'), and the tool description does not explain how or why they are used.
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 clear verb-object pair ('Split a hostname into labels'), but the appended phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is confusing and the listed parameters (url, host, json, tz) do not align with a simple hostname-splitting operation.
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 alternatives, and no conditions for use or non-use are mentioned.
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 distinct purposes, though time-related tools (timezone, tz-utc, utc-time) and URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) share overlapping domains. However, each tool's specific output and intent are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tools use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens naming convention (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, utc-time). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer function from name.
The server exposes 11 tools, which is a reasonable number for a general-purpose utility. Each tool serves a distinct function without being redundant or excessive, fitting well within the typical range.
The tools cover a broad set of utilities (time, URL parsing, HTTP status, JSON validation, robots.txt), but the server name suggests a clock focus. While time-related functionality is well represented, the additional URL and HTTP tools indicate a mixed-purpose design rather than a fully comprehensive single domain.