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. It only mentions that identifiers are not retained, but does not explain behavior such as side effects, output format, or how the request is processed.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the purpose itself is too ambiguous to be considered effective. Still, there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The tool is underspecified: it lacks details about what 'classified' means, how the four distinct parameters are used, and what output or result the caller should expect.
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?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are generic and do not clarify how url, host, json, or zone contribute to 'compatibility' or classification. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning.
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 phrase 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not identify a specific resource or action. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives a generic statement and does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: URL parsing, HTTP status codes, timezone handling, JSON validation, and robots.txt fetching. Even overlapping areas like URL tools focus on different aspects (origin/path vs. host/scheme vs. domain labels).
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No camelCase, underscores, or mixed styles, making the naming pattern predictable and uniform.
With 11 tools, the set sits within the typical 3-15 range. The domain is a mix of unrelated utilities (URL, time, JSON, HTTP), which feels slightly unfocused but not excessive.
The tools cover common operations for their respective areas: URL parsing, time/UTC, JSON validation, and HTTP status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no URL encoding/decoding or generic HTTP request tool), but the current set is reasonably comprehensive for its stated purposes.