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 provided, the description carries the full burden. 'No identifiers are retained' is a useful privacy/behavioral disclosure, but the description does not explain what happens to the inputs (url, host, json, zone) during classification, whether computation is local, or what side effects (if any) exist.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first and the privacy note is a meaningful addition, though 'how this request is classified' could have been more specific without hurting conciseness.
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 tool accepts four optional parameters and has no output schema, yet the description provides no information about what the classification output looks like, what categories exist, or what each input contributes. An agent cannot reliably determine whether this tool is the right one or how to interpret the result.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning — it never mentions url, host, json, or zone, nor how each input influences the classification.
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 'how this request is classified' is vague — it doesn't specify what classification means (citation type? URL category? validation verdict?) or what output the agent should expect. Among siblings like citation, validate-json, and normalize-url, the tool's distinct role is not clear.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as validate-json or normalize-url. The description implies it is a classification/checking tool for a request, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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 distinct purposes, but timezone/utc-time both return current time and citation/normalize-url both inspect URL components. Compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog, though descriptions provide some help.
All tool names use lowercase-hyphenated style, but they mix noun labels (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-object actions (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). This mixed semantic pattern makes naming less predictable despite the consistent formatting.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but a server titled 'Leap year check' carries only one leap-year tool among unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is a major scope mismatch for the stated purpose.
The set lacks a coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess: for a leap-year server there is only the bare check, and as a general utility server there are obvious omissions like date arithmetic or more detailed HTTP capabilities. Agents would hit dead ends beyond the narrow included functions.