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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool splits hostnames and does not provide WHOIS/ownership data; it does not mention output format, handling of invalid inputs, or side effects. The mismatch with unrelated parameters like json and zone further obscures actual 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the scope qualifier is brief 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?
The tool has 4 parameters, 0 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the hostname-labeling concept. It does not explain which parameter to provide, what the result looks like, or how this tool relates to siblings like normalize-url or validate-json. This is too sparse for confident invocation.
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 parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify how 'url', 'json', or 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname into labels. It is not harmful, but it is not compensatory either.
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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also clarifies a non-goal ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like normalize-url, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 alternatives such as normalize-url or citation. The description implies a hostname-labeling use case but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context.
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 are clearly separate: URL parsing, robots inspection, time lookups, and JSON validation occupy distinct niches. The main confusions are citation vs normaliz-url, both URL inspection, and compatibility, whose classification purpose is vague.
All names use kebab-case, but the parts of speech vary: normalize-url and validate-json are verb-object, while citation, timezone, and iana-zones are noun phrases. This makes the naming readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 11 tools, the server is within the well-scoped range and no tool feels redundant. The scope is broad—URLs, HTTP, time, JSON—but the count itself is not excessive.
As a loose utility server, it offers a few operations per category rather than full coverage: time has current/lookup but no conversion, URL has inspection but no content fetch by design. Missing obvious helpers like URL comparison or timezone conversion, though the server likely aims to be minimal.