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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only inspection and 'No identifiers are retained' is a useful privacy guarantee, but the description does not disclose output behavior, whether the input is consumed in part or whole, or any other side effects. It provides some transparency but not complete coverage.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the privacy statement earns its place. This is appropriately sized for the minimal content provided.
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 no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate what output to expect, how the parameters influence the classification, or what 'classified' means in this context, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it and interpret the result.
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 the baseline is 3. The description supplies no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'this request,' and it does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to the classification.
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 states a verb ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but leaves what classification means ambiguous — it could be compatibility scoring, request categorization, or something else. It does not use the term 'compatibility' or define the classification dimensions, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url.
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 choose this tool over the sibling tools. The phrase 'this request' implies it is used to inspect the current request's classification, but there is no stated context, prerequisite, or alternative route for behavior to be inferred.
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 have distinct outputs, but there is noticeable overlap in the URL/HTTP cluster (citation, normalize-url, inspect-robots, status-catalog) and the time cluster (utc-time, timezone, iana-zones). The 'compatibility' tool is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Naming styles are mixed: some tools use verb-noun patterns like 'validate-json' and 'normalize-url', while others are noun-based like 'citation' and 'compatibility', or hyphenated domain terms like 'fx-eur' and 'iana-zones'. The inconsistent conventions make the set feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Currency EUR' and only one tool relates to currency. The rest are URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities, so the count is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
For a currency-focused server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no exchange conversion, rate lookup, historical data, or multi-currency support. The unrelated utility tools do not compensate for the missing core currency functionality.