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?
There are no annotations, and the description only mentions that identifiers are not retained. It does not disclose other side effects, data handling, failure modes, or whether the tool reads or modifies state.
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 short and front-loaded, with one privacy note, but it is too vague to be effective. It is concise in length but not in informative value.
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 vague classification purpose and four heterogeneous parameters, the description lacks enough context for correct invocation. There is no output schema or explanation of how url, host, json, and zone relate to classification.
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 descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what classification means, what categories are used, or what output is produced. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No use cases, prerequisites, or context are provided, so an agent cannot decide when compatibility is appropriate.
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 target distinct operations—text counting, JSON validation, robots inspection, time utilities—and descriptions clarify the differences. The main risk is citation versus normalize-url, since both describe URL components, and timezone versus utc-time could occasionally cause misselection.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase, but they mix styles: verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json, noun compounds like char-count and status-catalog, and single nouns like citation and compatibility. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 11 tools, the set is well within the ideal range and each utility addresses a separate use case. No obvious redundant or filler tools are present.
The surface covers text validation, URL inspection, robots, time, and HTTP status reasonably well for a privacy-focused utility server. Missing conveniences like timezone conversion or URL encoding are minor and can be worked around.