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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does not do (WHOIS/ownership lookup), and gives no indication of output format, error behavior, or how it handles invalid hostnames.
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 filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the WHOIS/ownership exclusion is concise scoping 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool or understand its outputs. The description neither explains the relationship between parameters nor describes the return value.
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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The description does not clarify why four optional parameters exist or which one is relevant for the hostname-splitting task, but the schema itself documents each field adequately.
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 clear action and resource: splitting a hostname into labels. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a useful boundary and helps set expectations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 choose this tool over sibling tools such as normalize-url or citation. The description implies a lightweight parsing use case but never states prerequisites, input requirements, or when another tool would be more appropriate.
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 in purpose, especially citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape, all of which inspect URLs or hostnames. The time-related tools utc-time and year-utc also overlap because a timestamp contains the year. Other tools are more distinct, but the boundary between these clusters is not always clear.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives some visual consistency. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object names (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are standalone nouns or noun-noun compounds (citation, timezone, status-catalog, year-utc). This makes the naming readable but not predictably consistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility-style server, neither too sparse nor overwhelming. The count feels slightly inflated by the mixed domains, but no individual tool is redundant enough to cut. Overall, the count is appropriate for a general-purpose utilities server.
The set covers a few small domains—URL inspection, time/timezone, HTTP status, and JSON validation—but none are fully fleshed out. For example, there is no timezone conversion or date formatting tool, and URL tools lack any operation for actual page retrieval. While the tools are self-contained, the overall surface feels more like a collection of samples than a complete workflow.