Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained.' However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether URLs are fetched, or what side effects may occur, leaving gaps.
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 short and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification; the first sentence earns its place by stating a purpose, but that purpose remains too ambiguous to be fully useful.
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 no output schema, no annotations, four optional parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain what classification is returned, how the inputs relate, or when this tool is preferable to alternatives.
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. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; the privacy note is general and does not clarify how url, host, json, or zone are used in classification.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never explains what classification means, what the result looks like, or what 'compatibility' refers to. It is vague rather than a specific verb+resource statement and does not distinguish it from siblings like validate-json or domain-shape.
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 about when to use this tool versus the siblings. The schema lists four optional inputs, but the description does not say which inputs should be provided together or what kind of request is expected.
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 operate on URLs (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots) and several on time (business-day, iana-zones, timezone, utc-time), creating some overlap in input types. The descriptions mostly clarify intent, but citation and compatibility in particular could still be confused.
Tool names mix nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound labels (business-day, iana-zones, utc-time). There is no consistent verb_noun or other naming pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not excessive numerically, but the server name 'Weekday vs weekend' suggests a single narrow utility, while most tools are unrelated to that purpose. The set feels scattershot rather than deliberately scoped.
The tools span URL inspection, time/date, and JSON validation without a unifying domain, so there is no coherent capability surface to complete. Each mini-cluster has gaps, such as URL tools that only inspect and time tools that lack conversions or date arithmetic.