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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained'), but it does not state whether the tool performs network requests, has side effects, returns a classification label, or exposes any other behavior. This is insufficient for a tool accepting URLs, hosts, JSON, and timezone names.
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 appropriately short: two sentences, with the main intent front-loaded and no filler. The privacy statement is a reasonable second sentence. The weakness is vagueness rather than verbosity or poor structure.
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 operationally incomplete. It does not explain what the classification output looks like, which parameters are relevant, what 'compatibility' means, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools. The 'No identifiers are retained' line provides useful but insufficient context.
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%, and each parameter already has its own description in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no meaning about how url, host, json, and zone interact or which combination produces which classification, but it also does not need to repeat the schema's per-parameter documentation.
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 the tool will 'Show how this request is classified,' which names an action and a vague resource ('this request'), but it never defines what classification means, what categories exist, or how 'compatibility' relates to the input fields. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, so an agent cannot tell when this tool is the right one.
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 any of the sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives. The sentence 'No identifiers are retained' is a privacy note rather than a usage condition, and the description leaves unclear which of the four optional parameters should be supplied or under what circumstances.
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.
Several tools have clear distinct purposes, but http-401 and status-catalog overlap on HTTP status information, and citation vs normalize-url both handle URL components. compatibility is also vague enough that an agent may struggle to know when to choose it.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the set mixes verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and utc-time. The pattern is readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but a few seem like one-off conveniences rather than part of a cohesive set, such as http-401 and compatibility. The count is not problematic, though slightly padded.
The implied domain is privacy-preserving HTTP/URL utilities, but there are notable gaps like redirect inspection, header checks, or URL comparison. Timezone and JSON validation tools feel disconnected from the core purpose, so the overall surface is incomplete and lacks a clear workflow.