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. It states 'No identifiers are retained,' which hints at privacy but does not disclose side effects, data handling, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavioral characteristics remain largely 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to read.
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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what 'classified' means, the expected output format, or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), giving basic meaning. The description adds no further clarification on how these parameters contribute to classification, so it stays at the baseline score.
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 specify the tool's function or what kind of classification is performed. It lacks a strong action verb and a defined resource, making it difficult to distinguish from other tools without additional 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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or comparisons to alternatives such as validate-json or normalize-url, leaving the agent without direction.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering URL analysis, time/date, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation with no significant overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention, matching the style across the entire set with no mixed casing or underscores.
The set of 11 tools is reasonable for a general-purpose utility server, providing a moderate breadth without feeling bloated or sparse.
The domain appears to be 'web developer utilities,' and while it covers common needs like URL handling, time, HTTP status, and JSON, some expected utilities (e.g., base64, HTML escaping) are missing, making it slightly incomplete.