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 present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one notable behavior ('No identifiers are retained'), which is a meaningful privacy property, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., network calls), authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid input. The statement is consistent with the schema, so no contradiction exists.
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 first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. It is brief but not under-specified to the point of confusion, though the second sentence could arguably be folded into a fuller explanation.
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 schema covers parameters and there is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains, but it does not. The lack of sibling differentiation and the absence of any example or expected classification categories make this only minimally viable 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 fully documents each parameter's meaning (URL, host, JSON text, timezone name). The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the general privacy note, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate here.
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 specific outcome ('Show how this request is classified') and a distinguishing behavioral property ('No identifiers are retained'). This is clearer than a mere restatement of the name, though it does not fully specify what 'classified' means or which input dimensions (URL, host, JSON, zone) drive the classification.
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 compatibility versus its siblings (citation, normalize, validate, etc.). The description does not state which input types or scenarios this tool is intended for, nor any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to an alternative tool.
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 cluster around related concerns: citation and normalize-url both work with URLs, and timezone/utc-time/iso-ordinal all deal with time. Descriptions are usually enough to tell them apart, but 'compatibility' is vague and could easily be confused with status-catalog or citation.
Names mix noun phrases like timezone and status-catalog with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hyphenated lowercase style is consistent, but there is no predictable verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is not an unreasonable number for a general utility server, but the set feels like a kitchen-sink collection rather than a focused toolkit. Given the server name 'ISO ordinal day', most of the tools are outside the apparent purpose.
There is no single coherent domain to assess, and each area is only thinly covered: URL tools lack encoding/decoding, time tools lack conversions between formats, and JSON support stops at validation. This makes the surface feel incomplete for almost any intended workflow.