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 disclosure burden; it does add one useful behavioral trait ('No identifiers are retained') and implies ephemeral processing. However, it does not disclose whether network requests are made, whether processing is read-only, or what side effects if any exist.
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 compact and has no filler, but the first sentence is too vague to justify its place. The privacy statement in the second sentence is the only concrete information.
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?
Four optional parameters and no output schema leave a lot unstated: the classification categories, expected output shape, and which parameter(s) to supply. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke compatibility with confidence, especially given the overlapping sibling tools.
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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, but it does not need to compensate because the schema fully documents each optional field.
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 only 'Show how this request is classified,' which is too vague to convey what the compatibility tool actually classifies or what schema applies. It does not name the resource or classification scheme, and the phrasing could fit several siblings without distinction.
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 on when to use compatibility instead of citation, validate-json, domain-shape, or normalize-url. Both the tool and its alternatives remain ambiguous for the same task.
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 target distinct concerns: timezone lookups, URL normalization, JSON validation, and robots.txt inspection are clearly separate. The only real overlap is citation vs. normalize-url, both of which extract host/scheme info from a URL, and iana-zones vs. timezone vs. utc-time could be slightly confusing in a timezone context.
All names use lowercase hyphenated style, which is readable, but they mix noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-led phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Ten tools is a reasonable count, but the set is not well-scoped to the server's stated IANA Zones identity. Only three tools clearly relate to timezones, while the rest cover unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities, making the count feel padded rather than purpose-built.
For a timezone-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it offers common names, current time, and UTC, but no comprehensive zone list, offset information, or timezone conversion. The URL and JSON helpers are similarly one-off utilities with no broader workflow coverage, leaving notable gaps in the apparent domain.