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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one boundary (no WHOIS/ownership data) but does not describe return values, handling of invalid hostnames, whether URLs are accepted, or whether json/zone parameters are ignored or rejected.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the exclusionary clause is succinct and useful.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently. It fails to specify the input format, expected output, behavior for unused parameters, or error handling.
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%, so the baseline is 3 despite no parameter details in the tool description. The description adds little beyond the schema, and it does nothing to clarify which of the four provided parameters should actually be used for splitting a hostname.
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 precise operation: 'Split a hostname into labels' and explicitly scopes out WHOIS/ownership lookup. This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates the tool from domain-enrichment or ownership-focused siblings.
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 'without WHOIS or ownership data' phrase implies the tool is for syntactic label extraction only, providing some negative guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it explain the role of parameters like url, json, or zone, leaving usage largely inferential.
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 outputs, but citation and normalize-url both return URL components and overlap on host/scheme. The time-related tools (iana-zones, timezone, utc-time) share a domain, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent may struggle to select it correctly.
All names are lowercase and kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes noun labels like citation and timezone with verb phrases like inspect-robots and validate-json, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'UUID Mint' and contains a loose collection of URL, time, HTTP, JSON, and UUID utilities. The count is not excessive, but the tools do not form a cohesive, well-scoped set.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so common workflows are only partially covered. For example, there is UUID generation but no UUID validation, timezone lookup but no timezone conversion, and URL inspection but no full URL parsing or content retrieval.