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. It does add one meaningful trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' which alerts the agent to a data-retention guarantee. However, it fails to disclose whether this is a read-only classification, whether inputs are executed, or what side effects occur, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.
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 primary action is stated first and the privacy note is a meaningful addition. Every word earns its place.
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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only states a vague classification purpose plus a privacy guarantee. It does not clarify what the classification result looks like, how parameters relate to the operation, or what an agent should do with the output. This leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as which inputs are expected together or how they influence the classification. Baseline 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 states a verb and a resource ('Show how this request is classified'), but it is vague about what 'classified' means and how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like 'citation' or 'validate', leaving the agent to guess the intended scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names explicit conditions nor mentions exclusions. The only context given, 'No identifiers are retained,' is a privacy note, not a usage guideline.
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 operate on URLs and overlap in scope: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all accept URL-related input and return overlapping metadata. The compatibility tool is too vague to distinguish from the others, and timezone/utc-time are similarly close.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style, which is readable and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun-based (citation, timezone, status-catalog).
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. Still, the server feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a focused toolkit, so the count is reasonable but not ideal.
The tool surface covers several URL, HTTP, time, and validation basics, but there is no clear overall domain tying them together. Notable gaps exist depending on intent: no DNS, header inspection, or meaningful ISBN validation beyond digit shape; the server name suggests a much narrower focus than what is provided.