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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which gives a privacy guarantee but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the request data, or if there are any side effects.
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 a single, succinct sentence with no redundant information. It is extremely concise and well-structured, delivering the core purpose without any fluff.
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 simplicity (four optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate to convey the basic function. However, it lacks context about what 'classified' means in terms of categories, and it does not address potential ambiguity with sibling tools, making it partially complete.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone) covering the meaning. The tool description adds no additional context or constraints beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('how this request is classified'), indicating the tool categorizes requests. It is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, though it could be more specific about what classification categories are returned.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives (e.g., citation, domain-shape, iana-zones). It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent select it.
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 are clearly distinct, but 'citation' and 'compatibility' have vague descriptions that could overlap with HTTP status handling, and 'status-catalog' adds further potential confusion. URL-related tools are distinguishable but require careful reading.
All names consistently use lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix noun phrases like 'timezone' and 'status-catalog' with verb-object forms like 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json'. This is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 11 tools, the set is reasonably sized and not overwhelming. Each tool appears to serve a single utility purpose, fitting the apparent web-utility domain.
The collection covers common web development utilities: URL handling, HTTP status, time, timezone, JSON validation, robots.txt inspection, and language tags. There are no major dead ends, though the server name 'Language zh' does not strongly align with the broader tool set.