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 disclose that no identifiers are retained, which is a useful privacy note, but it says nothing about side effects, network calls, rate limits, or what happens to the provided url, host, json, or zone inputs.
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 at two short sentences with no fluff. However, the first sentence is too vague to earn a 5, and the retention sentence, while valuable, is disconnected from the core function.
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 description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain the classification result, what the response looks like, which inputs are expected together, or when to prefer this tool over its many siblings.
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 each parameter already has an individual description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond calling the request 'classified,' but since the schema covers all parameters, the baseline 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 says 'Show how this request is classified,' which is vague: it does not specify what kind of request, what classification means, or what the possible classifications are. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, which also involve inspecting inputs.
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 about when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name and loose schema.
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 target clearly separate concerns, but citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs and can both return host/scheme information, which may create selection ambiguity. The time and status tools are distinct enough given their descriptions.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which is readable, but the set mixes verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation and status-catalog, plus odd constants like lang-en. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, though several are single-purpose constants such as lang-en and utc-time that add some bulk. The count is not excessive or too thin.
The domain appears to be privacy-preserving read-only helpers, and it covers basic URL, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation needs. However, there are notable gaps like timezone conversion, HTTP status details beyond a catalog, and the opaque compatibility and lang-en tools do not form a clear workflow.