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?
The description adds a negative behavioral constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which is helpful. However, no annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose that the tool also accepts json and zone inputs, leaving the tool's broader behavior opaque.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses the top score because it omits the other accepted inputs, making it concise but only partially informative.
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 covers only a slice of what an agent needs. It doesn't explain the output format, the purpose of the json/zone parameters, or whether url is a valid input for splitting.
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 schema already documents each parameter. The description does not explicitly tie 'hostname' to the 'host' parameter or clarify how url, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose, but it doesn't need to add much beyond what the schema 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') and differentiates from WHOIS/ownership tools. However, it is incomplete because the schema includes url, json, and zone parameters that are not mentioned, so the stated purpose does not cover the actual tool scope.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (splitting hostnames) but offers no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
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: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, timezone and utc-time both return current time, and compatibility's classification is unclear next to status-catalog. The broad mix of currency, time, URL, and HTTP tools makes selection ambiguous.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-noun pattern. Vague names like citation and compatibility sit beside concrete names like status-catalog and utc-time, making the naming feel arbitrary.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but only one tool relates to the server's stated 'Currency USD' domain. The count is padded with unrelated utilities across timezones, URLs, robots, and JSON, so it does not fit the server's apparent scope.
For a currency-related server, the surface is almost entirely missing: only fx-usd exists, with no conversion, rates, formatting, or currency list. Even as a general utility set, it has no coherent domain and many natural operations are absent.