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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does NOT do (no WHOIS/ownership), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what it DOES return, how it handles invalid input, or what happens with the four parameters (especially 'json' and 'zone' which seem unrelated to hostname splitting). The description reveals a mismatch: a tool described as splitting hostnames accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters with no explanation of how 'json' and 'zone' fit the behavior. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap.
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, extremely brief, and front-loads the core action ('split a hostname'). It earns high marks for brevity, but the sentence omits any mention of the tool's parameters, which is a structural omission - not merely verbosity. Still, for what it includes, there is zero waste.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot know what the tool returns (label array? normalized string?), what input formats are valid, or how the 'json' and 'zone' parameters interact with the core action. The description gives the agent the 'what' but not the 'how' or the full 'why'. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 heterogeneous params), this is a clear completeness 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?
While schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a schema description), those descriptions are minimal and don't explain how they relate to the tool's core behavior of splitting hostnames. The 'url' and 'host' parameters are plausible inputs, but 'json' and 'zone' have no stated connection to hostname splitting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, and actually raises confusion about how 'json' and 'zone' are used. For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description's failure to reconcile the parameters with the stated purpose drops it below baseline.
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 ('split'), a specific resource ('hostname'), and an explicit exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings that might do WHOIS lookups or domain ownership enrichment. The negative constraint is highly informative for an agent deciding between tools.
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 exclusion 'without WHOIS or ownership data' tells the agent when NOT to use this tool - namely when WHOIS/ownership info is needed - which is a clear usage boundary. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the negative constraint implies the routing decision. The context signals show requiredParams=0, so no prerequisites needed.
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: citation and normalize-url both decompose URLs into host/scheme, http-200 is a single-code subset of status-catalog, and timezone/utc-time both give current time. compatibility is too vague to position relative to the others, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the style mixes nouns (status-catalog, timezone), verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and code-like labels (http-200). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the naming remains readable.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a web/HTTP utility server. However, a few tools could be consolidated (http-200 into status-catalog, utc-time into timezone), so the count is slightly higher than needed but not excessive.
The set covers common status-code lookup, URL parsing, robots.txt inspection, JSON validation, and time retrieval, but it lacks natural complements such as timezone conversion, header inspection, or URL construction. These gaps are workable, but they make the surface feel incomplete for a general HTTP/URL utility tool.