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 at all, the description carries the transparency burden. The statement 'No identifiers are retained' adds a useful privacy/retention behavior that goes beyond the schema, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, what side effects may occur, or how input is otherwise processed.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core claim is front-loaded. However, the terseness leaves important semantic gaps, which slightly reduces the score.
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?
For a tool with four optional, heterogeneous parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer what inputs to provide, what the classification result looks like, or why it would choose this tool over its siblings.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it refers to 'request' generically and does not clarify how url, host, json, and zone relate to 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 names a verb ('Show') and a subject ('how this request is classified'), but never defines what 'request' means or what classification labels look like. It is not a tautology, but it remains vague about the tool's core function and does not distinguish it from siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. The schema accepts url, host, json, and zone, which overlap conceptually with siblings (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone), yet the description gives no selection criteria or exclusions.
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: citation and normalize-url both return URL origin/host information, while timezone and utc-time both provide current time. The descriptions help separate most tools, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with classification or request-checking tools.
Names use lowercase hyphenation and are generally readable, but they mix verb-led forms like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json with noun-led forms like domain-shape, status-catalog, and utc-time. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'Nano ID shape check' the scope feels diffuse, with URL, time, JSON, and HTTP status utilities included. Several tools do not clearly earn their place under that stated purpose.
The server claims a narrow Nano ID focus, yet only one tool directly supports it, while URL, JSON, time, and robots checks are shallow one-offs. There are no tools for generating or custom-validating Nano IDs, and URL handling stops at normalization without redirects or deeper request inspection.