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 and no detailed description, the tool's behavior is opaque. The only behavioral hint is 'No identifiers are retained,' which does not explain side effects, return values, or error conditions.
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 short but not effectively structured. The first sentence is too vague to be useful, and the second sentence about identifier retention is an isolated privacy note rather than a clear functional 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 description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or what classification outcome the user should expect.
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 tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the purpose of each parameter in the context of 'compatibility' remains unclear.
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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what 'compatibility' means, what action is performed, or what resource is affected. It provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.
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. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where 'compatibility' would be the appropriate choice.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between URL-related tools (citation vs normalize-url) and time-related tools (timezone vs utc-time). Overall, the descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
The naming is inconsistent: some tools are nouns (citation, timezone, status-catalog), some are verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and one is an abbreviated pair (lang-fr). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the verb/noun mix makes the set feel incoherent.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool adds a distinct capability. It is not overly large, though some tools feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities.
The tools cover a variety of network, time, and data-validation utilities, but the scope is unclear. Given the server name 'Language fr', there is very little language-specific functionality beyond lang-fr, so the completeness relative to the implied domain is limited.