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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It offers a helpful hint that the operation is purely lexical, but it fails to disclose what happens with the json input (validated and discarded), what the output format is, or any error/edge-case behavior. The schema hints at 'discarded after the check', but the description itself is nearly silent on behavior.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and immediately adding a distinguishing constraint. It is efficient, though the brevity may be the cause of some missing information.
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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine whether to pass url, host, or both, cannot learn what the returned value looks like, and gets no explanation for the unrelated-looking json and zone parameters. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameter set is a significant gap.
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. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, and notably does not explain whether 'url' and 'host' are alternatives or why 'json' and 'zone' are accepted. It neither harms nor improves on what the schema already provides.
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 verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also differentiates the tool from ones that include WHOIS/ownership data. However, it doesn't reconcile this focused purpose with the heterogeneous input parameters (url, host, json, zone), leaving some ambiguity about what the tool actually operates 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 phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies this tool is for pure hostname parsing and that other tools are needed when ownership info is required, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
A few clusters overlap—citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time—but the descriptions generally make the intended output clear. The vague 'compatibility' tool adds some ambiguity, but no tools are truly indistinguishable.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), while others are noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog) or single nouns (citation, timezone). This is readable but not predictably consistent.
11 tools is within the reasonable 3-15 range and each tool has a distinct purpose. However, the set spans URL inspection, time, UUID, JSON, and HTTP status, so it feels slightly broader than the server name implies.
For a shape and inspection utility server, the main categories are covered: URL normalization, robots.txt inspection, HTTP status, timezone lookup, current time, JSON validation, and UUID shape checking. Minor gaps exist like redirect chains or JSON schema validation, but the core surface is not severely incomplete.