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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool does not provide WHOIS/ownership data, but it does not state return values, side effects, edge-case behavior, or how it treats the json and zone inputs.
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 or repetition, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short but somewhat under-specified, which prevents a higher score.
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?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. An agent would not know how to construct a valid call involving url, json, or zone, or what output to expect after splitting a hostname.
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 without parameter details in the tool description. The description adds little beyond implying the host/url-related parameters are involved, and it does not explain how the json or zone parameters fit into the 'split a hostname' behavior.
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, and explicitly rules out WHOIS/ownership data, which helps distinguish it from domain-lookup tools. However, it does not clarify how the url, json, and zone parameters relate to this core purpose, so the full scope of the tool is slightly ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url or timezone. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Split a hostname', with no when-not-to-use or exclusionary 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.
Several tools overlap in input or output: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. The descriptions clarify the intended focus somewhat, but an agent could still misselect between these pairs.
Tool names mix standalone nouns like citation and timezone with verb-noun compounds like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and hyphenation is inconsistent. Most names are still readable and weakly predictable, but there is no strong naming convention.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's apparent 'Robots Inspect' focus is supported by only inspect-robots. The rest are broad URL, time, and JSON utilities, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a server named Robots Inspect, robots.txt coverage stops at group counts and offers no way to retrieve actual rules, test URLs against directives, or compare agent policies. The unrelated utilities do not fill this gap, so core inspection workflows would dead-end.