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?
The only behavioral information is the privacy note 'No identifiers are retained', which is helpful but does not disclose other side effects, external dependencies, or whether the tool modifies any state. Without annotations, the description fails to provide adequate transparency.
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 concise and readable, but it is too brief to convey the necessary meaning. It avoids verbosity, yet the sentence structure leaves critical details unstated, making it less useful than a more explicit description would be.
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?
With four heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot infer what results to expect, how the parameters interact, or what 'classification' means in this context. The description fails to provide the information needed to use the tool correctly.
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?
Parameter names (url, host, json, zone) are self-explanatory, but their descriptions are generic and seem copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' suggests unrelated functionality). The description does not explain how these parameters relate to the classification logic or each other.
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 'Show how this request is classified' but fails to specify what kind of classification is performed, which inputs are used, or what 'compatibility' refers to. The verb 'Show' indicates a read operation, but the actual functionality remains ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, or status-catalog. The description does not distinguish its purpose from alternatives or offer any selection criteria.
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 distinct function: URL analysis, JSON inspection, time/timezone, and HTTP status. Only 'compatibility' is vaguely defined and could conceptually overlap with status-catalog, but the other descriptions prevent significant misselection.
Names mix noun-only (citation, compatibility), noun-noun (json-bytes, status-catalog), and verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) styles with no clear pattern. All are readable, but the convention is not systematic or predictable.
With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range. Each tool has a specific purpose, and the set does not feel bloated, even though the overall scope spans multiple utility domains.
URL, JSON, time, and HTTP status areas each have reasonable coverage with no obvious dead ends. However, the lack of a clearly stated central domain makes completeness hard to fully evaluate, and 'compatibility' feels under-specified.