Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country FR

compatibility

Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
zoneNoIANA timezone name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, and the description only mentions that identifiers are not retained. It does not disclose what actions are performed, what inputs are checked, or what output is produced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, containing only one sentence and no redundant information. Every word contributes to the minimal stated purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and an ambiguous purpose, the description lacks essential context about return values or expected behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to determine how to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although each parameter has a brief description, none explain how url, host, json, or zone contribute to the 'compatibility' classification. The descriptions are generic and disconnected from the tool's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what 'compatibility' means or what resource is acted upon. It does not distinguish 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.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as citation, normalize-url, or validate-json. The privacy note about identifiers is not a usage condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool performs a distinct function: country lookup, URL inspection, robots.txt parsing, timezone conversion, and JSON validation. Even URL-related tools are clearly separated by their outputs and actions, so there is no meaningful overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), some are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone), and one is an opaque abbreviation (cc-fr). A consistent verb-noun or noun-only convention would improve predictability.

Tool Count4/5

Eleven tools is a reasonable number and stays within the typical well-scoped range. The tools cover several distinct utility areas, though the server's stated identity as 'ISO country FR' does not fully explain the broad collection.

Completeness3/5

The tool set appears to cover a handful of common web-development utilities, but the domain is not strongly defined. It lacks obvious related operations such as URL encoding/decoding, DNS lookup, or broader country data, so coverage feels partial rather than comprehensive.