Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country GB

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

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy/retention behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. Since no annotations are provided, this partial disclosure is the only behavioral information available.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is brief, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The single sentence is compact yet ambiguous, and it does not structure the information effectively to convey the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'classified' means, what inputs are relevant, or what output the agent should expect. The tool's complexity may be low, but the description leaves critical context missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters relate to the classification logic.

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?

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague. It does not specify what kind of request, what classification means, or what the tool actually does. The verb 'Show' is weak and fails to convey the tool's primary function or its relationship to compatibility.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context or conditions that would guide an agent to select this tool over siblings like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url overlap in URL parsing, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with citation's request classification.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, iana-zones) with verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). 'cc-gb' and 'compatibility' do not follow a clear pattern.

Tool Count4/5

Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and not overwhelming. The set is broad but each tool serves a distinct utility purpose, so the count feels acceptable.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover common web/network utilities like URL parsing, time zones, HTTP statuses, and JSON validation, but the domain is not clearly defined. Obvious companions such as a direct HTTP fetch or DNS/WHOIS lookup are missing.