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 claim is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a useful privacy note. However, there are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, read-only behavior, or processing semantics. It does not say whether any input is required, what happens to the provided values, or what classification decisions are made.
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 easy to parse, with no obvious filler. However, the first sentence is vague and does not sufficiently explain the tool's purpose, so it does not fully earn its place. Concise, but under-specified.
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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks return semantics, parameter usage guidance, and relationships to sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly or interpret its result. The description is far too minimal for the complexity involved.
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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema carries the heavy lifting. A 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means, what inputs it uses, or what output to expect. It does not distinguish from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, leaving the agent unable to know what this tool actually does. The name 'compatibility' hints at intent but does not clarify it.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the siblings. There are no usage contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. An agent cannot determine whether this is the right tool for a given request.
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 are functionally distinct, but citation vs normalize-url and timezone vs utc-time could be confused. color-hex-ok has no real description beyond the server name, making its purpose ambiguous.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is mixed: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json), and color-hex-ok doesn't fit any pattern. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun or noun style.
11 tools is numerically modest, but the server name implies a CSS hex color scope, and only one tool relates to that topic. The other utilities form an arbitrary grab bag, so the count is not appropriate for the stated purpose.
For the stated CSS hex color purpose, there is only color-hex-ok with no visible parse/convert/manipulate operations. If interpreted as a general utility server, there is no coherent domain to assess, so the surface feels incomplete either way.