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. It discloses that the tool does not fetch WHOIS or ownership data, which is useful, but it does not describe what happens with url, json, or zone, nor what the output looks like. The mismatch between the described purpose and the parameter set weakens transparency.
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 focused sentence with no fluff and the core behavior is front-loaded. However, it could earn a 5 by briefly clarifying which parameters apply and what the string-shaping operation produces.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a description that only covers one of several apparent capabilities, the tool is under-specified. An agent cannot confidently determine the role of json and zone, the expected return structure, or whether url and host are interchangeable.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not connect the hostname-splitting behavior to the relevant parameters. Worse, json and zone are described for unrelated purposes, and the description gives no clue why they belong in this tool. The schema descriptions are individually clear, but the overall parameter semantics for domain-shape are confusing.
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 operation: splitting a hostname into labels, and adds a clear exclusion (no WHOIS/ownership data). This distinguishes it from ownership-related domain tools, though it does not explicitly mention the unrelated json and zone parameters, which introduces some ambiguity.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, and does not explain which of the four optional parameters is appropriate for the hostname-splitting operation. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause offers a mild scope hint but no actionable routing information.
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 around URL and HTTP inspection (citation, normalize-url, inspect-robots, compatibility), making it hard to know which to select for a given task. Timezone tools are clearer but the URL-related tools have fuzzy boundaries.
Names mix noun-style labels (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-style labels (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), and some names like citation and compatibility are vague. Hyphenation is consistent, but the overall naming pattern is not.
Ten tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Timezone Clock' while most tools are URL/HTTP utilities. The count feels padded and unfocused relative to the apparent purpose.
The timezone surface lacks common operations like converting between zones or getting offset details, while the URL/HTTP side is a grab-bag of partial capabilities. The tool set does not coherently cover either apparent domain.