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. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait—'No identifiers are retained'—and 'Show' weakly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state whether any data is stored, what output the classification produces, or whether there are side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It earns its conciseness, though it is borderline under-specified rather than simply compact.
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?
Given the tool has four optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what classifications are possible, how the output should be interpreted, or how this tool differs from its siblings, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it meaningfully.
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 all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters relate to the classification, so the baseline score of 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 specific verb and resource: 'Show how this request is classified.' This is clear enough to establish an action and object, and 'No identifiers are retained' adds a defining trait. However, it does not differentiate this from siblings like normalize or validate_json, and 'classified' remains somewhat abstract without naming the classification scheme.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as citation, domain-shape, normalize, or validate_json. The privacy note 'No identifiers are retained' implies a privacy-sensitive context, but this is not explicit and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.
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 are individually distinct, but there are overlapping clusters: citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all inspect URLs, and iana-zones/timezone/utc-time/iso-week all deal with time. The descriptions help separate them, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some hyphenated noun phrases (domain-shape, status-catalog), and some are verb-object commands (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is not well-scoped: the 'ISO week number' label covers only one of these tools, and the rest are a collection of unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. It feels like a grab bag rather than a focused server.
There is no coherent domain to assess against. The ISO week number tool stands alone with no date-input or conversion companions, and the URL/time/JSON tools cover only narrow slices of their respective domains. Obvious gaps exist in nearly every cluster.