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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no identifiers are retained, which is a positive privacy note, but it does not say whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, or has any side effects. The classification behavior itself is left opaque.
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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the first sentence is vague and does not earn its place – 'Show how this request is classified' could be more specific. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explain what classification means, how the parameters influence the result, or what the output looks like. An agent would not know what to expect or how to interpret the response.
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 coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all parameters.
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 a verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request'), but 'this request' is undefined – it could refer to any of the four parameters or the whole tool invocation. It does not specify what classification means or what the tool produces, making it impossible to distinguish from siblings 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools cover related actions (citation, domain-shape, iana-zones, validate-json, etc.), but the description gives no hint about when 'compatibility' is the right 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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both analyzing URLs, and 'compatibility' and 'status-catalog' both dealing with HTTP statuses. However, each has a distinct focus (scheme/status vs. origin/path; classification vs. catalog), so they are not fully redundant.
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case pattern with clear verb-noun or noun-only structures (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'inspect-robots', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
With 11 tools, the set is well-sized for a utility collection covering URL, HTTP, JSON, time, and language functions. It is within the typical 3-15 range and does not feel bloated or sparse.
The tools cover a diverse set of standalone web/REST utilities, but there is no cohesive domain or lifecycle (e.g., no CRUD operations, no clear workflow). Some areas could be missing (e.g., DNS lookup, header inspection), but each tool is self-contained for its stated purpose.