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 behavioral note is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but not the tool's core operation. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return behavior; with no annotations, the description bears the full burden and is insufficient.
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 brief and to the point, but the content is vague and not front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is concise yet uninformative, warranting a moderate 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 the tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves out essential context such as what the tool returns, the meaning of 'classified,' and when to invoke it. It is far from complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (URL, host, JSON, timezone), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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' does not specify what the tool does, what kind of request, or how classification works. It does not mention any of the parameters or distinguish it from sibling tools like 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description lacks any conditional or comparative 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.
Most tools have distinct functions, though 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handle URLs, and 'timezone'/'utc-time' overlap in time handling. 'compatibility' is vague but not truly duplicate.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-led ('inspect-robots', 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and noun-led ('citation', 'timezone', 'status-catalog') patterns; 'cc-de' is an outlier.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but the server name implies a narrow ISO country (DE) purpose while most tools are unrelated web/time/JSON utilities, making the set feel mismatched.
As a country-ISO resource, only cc-de covers that purpose; as a general utility set, it lacks many standard web operations (e.g., actual HTTP fetch, DNS, text processing), so completeness is poor for the apparent stated purpose.