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 statement 'No identifiers are retained' gives a small privacy-relevant detail, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it sends data externally, or what other side effects may occur. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially addresses it.
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 only two short sentences and contains no redundant or irrelevant content. It is concise and easy to read, though its brevity contributes to the lack of substance.
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 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what output to expect, how the parameters are used, or what 'classified' means. This leaves the agent without enough context to invoke 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?
All four parameters have schema descriptions, so coverage is 100%. However, the descriptions are minimalist one-liners and do not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to each other or to the 'classification' behavior, so the description adds little meaning beyond the schema.
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' without defining what classification means, what categories are used, or what resource is being classified. It does not provide a specific verb or distinguish the tool from its siblings.
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 this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json, normalize-url, or iana-zones. The description offers no context for selecting this tool based on the request.
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 serve clearly distinct purposes (URL, time, JSON, robots, etc.), but 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with other classifications. Overall, the functions are separable.
Naming conventions are inconsistent, mixing hyphenated phrases (domain-shape, normalize-url) with plain words (citation, timezone), and using both nouns and verbs. This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls comfortably within the typical well-scoped range and does not feel excessive or thin.
The set covers a variety of utilities (URL, HTTP, time, JSON, robots) but lacks a clear cohesive domain, leaving gaps for common web-dev helpers like encoding or hashing. It feels like a random collection rather than a complete toolkit.