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?
The only disclosed behavior is that identifiers are not retained, which is a useful privacy note. However, there is no mention of side effects, output format, error behavior, or any operational details, especially since no annotations are present.
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 and free of unnecessary wording, making it efficient to read. It front-loads the core idea, even though that idea is underdeveloped.
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?
The description does not explain what the tool returns, how classification works, which parameters are relevant, or what makes it different from related tools. Given the minimal annotations and no output schema, this leaves too many gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 descriptions provide basic meaning for each parameter (URL, host, JSON, timezone), reaching the baseline for high schema coverage. However, the descriptions appear reused from sibling tools and do not clarify how these parameters relate to classification or compatibility checking.
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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify the resource, action, or classification being performed. It does little to distinguish 'compatibility' from sibling tools like 'citation', 'normalize-url', or 'validate-json'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, examples, or intended scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to guess based only on the vague description.
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.
Most tools have distinct functions, but names like 'citation', 'compatibility', and 'cc-br' are vague and could be confused with one another or with URL-related tools. The intended purpose of several tools is not immediately clear from the names.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb-noun patterns ('normalize-url', 'validate-json'), while others are bare nouns or adjectives ('citation', 'compatibility', 'timezone'), and one is a specific code ('cc-br'). No consistent naming convention is applied across the set.
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical 3–15 range and does not feel excessive. The breadth is somewhat wide, but the number itself is reasonable for a multi-purpose utility server.
The tool set appears to cover disjoint areas (URLs, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, country codes) without a clear unifying domain, so it is hard to assess whether it is complete. Several related operations are missing (e.g., URL encoding/decoding, HTTP request execution), leaving the set feeling partial and ad hoc.