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' provides some privacy transparency, but the description does not disclose other relevant behavior such as whether it makes network calls, has side effects, requires authentication, or how input is handled. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 very short and contains no filler. It front-loads the main action and adds a privacy note in the second sentence, which is efficient and easy to scan.
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's ambiguous purpose and multiple heterogeneous parameters, the description is not complete enough. It lacks expected output format, classification categories, error behavior, and concrete examples, making it difficult for an agent to invoke it correctly in context.
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 brief descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. However, the descriptions are not strongly tied to the tool's purpose: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' hint at behavior but do not clarify how these parameters relate to 'classification' or 'compatibility'.
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 clearly state what the tool actually does or what 'classification' means. It gives no explicit action or resource, and relies heavily on the tool name 'compatibility' for context.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone, the description gives no conditions, examples, or criteria to help an agent choose this tool.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time all relate to time. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog. Only a few tools have truly distinct, non-overlapping functions.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is a consistent visual style. However, the pattern is inconsistent: some are imperative verbs (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone, status-catalog). The names are readable but do not follow a predictable verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and falls within the typical well-scoped range. Some tools feel trivial or overlapping, such as lang-it and the multiple time-related tools, but the total is not excessive.
The tool set has no coherent unifying domain: it mixes URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and a language tag. Obvious operations like URL validation, timezone conversion, or HTTP status details are missing, and the grab-bag nature makes it impossible to assess complete lifecycle coverage.