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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds one useful privacy note ('No identifiers are retained') but omits whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what the output format is, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. The phrase 'show how this request is classified' is vague about the actual action.
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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is structurally efficient but does not front-load enough useful information about purpose or usage to be considered well-crafted.
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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain what classification means, what inputs to supply, and what output to expect. It only offers a cryptic purpose and a privacy note, leaving the agent without enough guidance to call the 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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, each with a clear meaning (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only a general privacy statement. Given the high schema coverage, 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 'Show how this request is classified' states a general action but does not specify what 'classified' means or what resource it operates on. It does not mention the tool's name 'compatibility' or connect to any specific kind of classification, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'status-catalog'.
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 versus alternatives. No mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot decide between this tool and sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'timezone' based on the description alone.
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 clearly distinct outputs: URL metadata, URL normalization, hostname labels, robots inspection, HTTP status catalog, time lookups, JSON validation, and hex encoding. The main ambiguity is between citation and normalize-url, which both return host/scheme information, and between timezone and utc-time, though the descriptions help clarify their different outputs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, giving a surface-level consistency. However, the set mixes nouns like citation and timezone, verb-object forms like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and the unusual hex-ok, so there is no consistent naming pattern.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the well-scoped range. The tools span URL, time, and data utility categories without feeling redundant, though the breadth suggests a general-purpose utility server rather than a tightly focused one.
The set covers common URL, time, and simple data-validation needs, but the overall domain is broad and somewhat unclear. Obvious companion operations are missing, such as hex decoding, timezone conversion, or more detailed request inspection beyond the vague compatibility tool.