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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that WHOIS or ownership data is not included, which is useful for setting expectations, but it does not describe what is returned, what side effects (if any) occur, or how errors behave. The tool's behavior beyond input handling is under-specified.
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 sentence that directly states the core function and an important exclusion. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no wasted words.
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?
The tool accepts four heterogeneous parameters (url, host, json, zone) with no required fields, yet the description does not explain why such different inputs are relevant to splitting a hostname into labels. There is no output schema showing return values, and the description does not say what the tool produces. For a tool with this parameter diversity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and call it.
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% — every parameter (url, host, json, zone) has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning to individual parameters, but with full schema coverage the description does not need to. Baseline 3 applies; credit is added because the description clarifies the overall purpose, which helps interpret the parameters in context.
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 action (splitting a hostname into labels) and gives a clear non-goal (no WHOIS or ownership data). However, it does not state what makes this tool distinct from sibling tools, and the tool name alone would not fully convey what 'domain-shape' performs.
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 instead of other domain-related tools, nor does it mention any alternative tools. The context for use can only be inferred from the 'split a hostname' phrasing, leaving the agent to guess at applicability.
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 around URL and request inspection: citation and normalize-url both return host/scheme, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status output. The vague compatibility tool compounds the problem, though the time and format-validation tools are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the set mixes imperative verb-noun names (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, compatibility, timezone, ulid-shape). This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and each has a separable utility. The count itself is fine, but the server appears to have drifted from the 'ULID shape check' purpose into a general web/time/format utility bag.
As a privacy-focused inspection toolkit, it covers URL, domain, robots, time, status codes, ULID, and JSON shape checks. However, there are notable gaps such as missing common format validators (UUID, email), no URL encoding/decoding, and the compatibility tool feels like an unexplained dead end.