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 description adds one useful behavioral disclosure: 'No identifiers are retained,' which tells the agent that inputs are not stored. However, there are no annotations to fall back on, and the description still fails to disclose what side effects, if any, occur, what the classification entails, or what happens to the submitted data beyond retention.
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 very short, with no wasted words, and the privacy note is placed second for quick visibility. However, brevity here obscures meaning rather than clarifying it; the first sentence is too generic to stand on its own, so the structure prioritizes form over substance.
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?
For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and many related siblings, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what output format to expect, what classification categories exist, how the parameters interact, or which sibling alternatives might be more relevant, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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%, so each parameter already carries a clear individual meaning in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how url, host, json, or zone relate to 'compatibility' classification, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.
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 'this request' refers to or what kind of classification is performed. The tool name 'compatibility' hints at a compatibility check, but the description does not state whether it examines url, host, json, zone, or some combination, making it indistinguishable without inspecting the schema.
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 for when to use this tool versus any of the siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this classification tool is the appropriate choice.
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.
The time-related tools (epoch-ms, utc-time, timezone, iana-zones) are distinguishable, but several URL tools overlap in input and output: citation and normalize-url both expose host/URL components, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. An agent could misselect between the URL inspection tools despite helpful descriptions.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: noun phrases like epoch-ms, utc-time, and status-catalog mix with imperative verbs like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. This inconsistency makes the naming style readable but unpredictable.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count on its own, but the set is not tightly scoped to the server's apparent identity of Unix epoch milliseconds; it mixes time, URL, robots, status code, and JSON utilities. This feels like a general utility grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.
For the time domain implied by the server name, there are no epoch-to-date conversions, formatting helpers, or timezone offset details, leaving obvious gaps. The URL/request utilities are similarly fragmentary, covering shape and status but not full content retrieval or more useful metadata, so the surface feels incomplete for any single stated purpose.