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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and a negative scope; it does not mention what the tool does with URL, JSON, or timezone inputs, whether it makes network calls, what it returns, or whether it is purely local.
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 with no wasted words and a clear front-loaded verb. It is concise and readable, though somewhat under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters.
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?
With no output schema and four seemingly unrelated optional parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool. It does not explain how url, json, or zone relate to splitting a hostname, nor what output or behavior to expect.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics and does not reconcile the 'hostname' focus with the url, json, and zone parameters, but the schema itself is sufficient for basic parameter-level understanding.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also adds a clear boundary: 'without WHOIS or ownership data.' It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or citation, but the core 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as normalize-url or citation. The negative scope 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a limitation, but it does not explain when to choose this tool or what inputs are appropriate in different scenarios.
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 fall into overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both process URLs, while timezone, utc-time, and unix-now all report current time. The descriptions clarify the exact output of each, but an agent could still struggle to pick between them without careful reading.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, giving a consistent visual style. However, the pattern mixes noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, unix-now) with verb-noun imperatives (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), so there is no single predictable naming convention.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and each utility has a narrow function. The count itself is reasonable, although the server name suggests a time-focused purpose while many tools are actually web/URL utilities.
The set covers common stateless operations: current time, timezone lookups, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. Notable gaps include epoch-to-human timestamp conversion and a way to fetch or inspect HTTP response details beyond status, which would be expected in a general utility server.