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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy note, but omits what the classification does, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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 two short sentences, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with four parameters and no other context, it does not convey necessary information efficiently; it reads as a placeholder.
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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'classification' means, what input combinations are valid, what output is expected, or any usage constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, each with a clear definition (URL, host, JSON, timezone). The description adds no relational meaning between these parameters and the classification concept, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 phrase 'Show how this request is classified' is vague — it does not specify the resource, action, or what classification refers to. It does not tie to the parameters (URL, host, JSON, zone) or clarify the domain of compatibility. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from siblings like 'citation' 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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose (country code, URL manipulation, timezone, JSON validation, etc.) with no overlapping functionality, so there is no ambiguity in selecting the right tool.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are noun-only (e.g., 'cc-jp', 'iana-zones') while others are verb-noun (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'). The style is uniform but the grammar is mixed.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable, but the collection feels like a random assortment of utilities rather than a focused feature set, making the size slightly unjustified.
There is no coherent domain to evaluate completeness against. The tools span unrelated areas (ISO, HTTP, timezones, JSON, robots), so the set is incomplete for any single purpose and lacks a clear scope.