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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful privacy-related trait, 'No identifiers are retained,' but it does not say what processing occurs, whether requests are sent externally, what side effects exist, or what happens to the inputs.
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 short and free of filler, and the privacy statement earns its place. However, it is undersized for a tool with four heterogeneous optional parameters and no output schema; the brevity leaves critical semantic gaps rather than achieving efficient completeness.
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 has no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters covering URL, host, JSON, and timezone, but the description does not explain what classification is returned, whether parameters are alternatives or combined, or what 'compatibility' means. Some context exists—classification and privacy—but it is far from 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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already documented individually. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema descriptions such as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate' are sufficient to support a baseline score of 3.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified,' which conveys a verb and a broad outcome, but it never specifies what 'compatibility' means or which resource is being classified. It is vague rather than a tautology, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this tool, so an agent has no basis for routing to 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 distinct, but citation and normalize-url both accept URLs and return host/scheme, so an agent could select the wrong one. timezone/utc-time/iana-zones and compatibility/status-catalog also have overlapping territory, though the descriptions provide some separation.
Names are readable but follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun compounds or standalone nouns (timezone, status-catalog, compatibility). This mix is not chaotic, but it lacks a predictable pattern.
11 tools is not excessive, and each utility is small and self-contained. However, the set feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, and some tools could plausibly be consolidated.
The tools cover basic URL inspection, HTTP status, time lookups, JSON validation, and random generation, but the server's intended domain is unclear. Within that mix, there are notable gaps such as no timezone conversion, no URL encoding/decoding, and no way to inspect HTTP headers, so coverage feels incomplete.