Extract domain from a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to extract domain from | |
| include_subdomain | No | Include subdomain in result |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes | ||
| subdomain | No | ||
| full_domain | Yes |
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 provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention how invalid URLs are handled, the impact of include_subdomain parameter, or any return value structure. The description is too minimal for an agent to infer behavior beyond basic extraction.
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 very short, consisting of a single sentence with no redundant information. However, it may be too brief for completeness, but conciseness alone is well-executed.
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 simple extraction tool with an output schema, the description should still mention return value format, handling of malformed URLs, or subdomain behavior. The current description lacks these details, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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 both parameters (url, include_subdomain) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.
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 'Extract domain from a URL' clearly states the verb (extract) and resource (domain from URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_emails, extract_numbers, parse_url, and validate_domain by focusing specifically on domain extraction.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parse_url or validate_domain. Lacks information about prerequisites or preferred use cases for domain extraction.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple random generators (random_integer, random_number), duplicate hashing functions (hash_md5, md5_checksum), and near-identical tools (compare, compare_2, compare_decimals). The sheer number of tools and lack of clear boundaries make it difficult for an agent to differentiate.
Naming is highly inconsistent. There are duplicate tools with different names (camel_case vs to_camel_case, slug vs slugify), arbitrary suffixes like '_2', and mixing of patterns (e.g., generate_password vs password_entropy). No clear convention is followed.
With 572 tools, the server is massively overpopulated for any coherent purpose. It includes trivial endpoints (true_endpoint, null, hello_world) and numerous duplicates, far exceeding a well-scoped utility set.
While the server covers many domains (math, strings, dates, colors, etc.), the presence of duplicate and trivial tools indicates a lack of thoughtful curation. There are gaps in basic operations (e.g., no dedicated file or network tools), and many tools are redundant.
