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, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — the operation is purely local and does not fetch WHOIS or ownership data — and 'split' implies a non-mutating transform. But it says nothing about how multiple inputs are handled, what happens to url/json/zone, or what the output looks like.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably under-sized for a tool whose schema exposes four seemingly unrelated inputs.
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 4-parameter, 0-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence covering only hostname splitting is incomplete. Missing: what the 'labels' output looks like, whether url/host/json/zone are alternatives or combinable, and why JSON validation and timezone checking belong to the same tool.
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, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema and actively conflicts with it: it centers on 'hostname' while the schema's first and most prominent parameter is 'url', and it ignores json and zone entirely. The agent gets no help mapping behavior to parameters.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels') and adds a scope contrast ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which is clear for that one behavior. However, the input schema exposes url, json, and zone parameters — none explained by this sentence — so the stated purpose does not match the tool's apparent multi-input scope, and an agent cannot tell which input is actually meant to be used.
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 invoke this tool versus alternatives or on how to choose among url, host, json, and zone. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause is a scope qualifier rather than a usage rule, and it names no sibling tool or exclusion condition.
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 have clear distinct purposes, but http-401 and status-catalog overlap on HTTP status information, and citation vs normalize-url both handle URL components. compatibility is also vague enough that an agent may struggle to know when to choose it.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the set mixes verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and utc-time. The pattern is readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but a few seem like one-off conveniences rather than part of a cohesive set, such as http-401 and compatibility. The count is not problematic, though slightly padded.
The implied domain is privacy-preserving HTTP/URL utilities, but there are notable gaps like redirect inspection, header checks, or URL comparison. Timezone and JSON validation tools feel disconnected from the core purpose, so the overall surface is incomplete and lacks a clear workflow.