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?
The statement 'No identifiers are retained' discloses one privacy behavior, but it does not describe side effects, read-only status, or what happens with the request. With no annotations, the description leaves most behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 has no redundant or promotional language, but it is too under-specified to be effective. It is concise in length yet lacks meaningful content.
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 description does not explain what the tool returns, what inputs are expected, or how it relates to the sibling tools. With four optional parameters and no output schema, the context is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.
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 already describes all four parameters and the description adds no additional meaning about how or when to use url, host, json, or zone. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is appropriate.
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 specify the tool's core function or resource. It fails to explain what compatibility means or what classification is being performed, making it nearly as ambiguous as the tool name.
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 or when to prefer one of the many sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not provide any selection criteria or context.
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 in purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname details, while timezone and utc-time both provide time-related data. This creates ambiguity and potential misselection.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated descriptors (domain-shape, normalize-url), and odd forms like sha1-ok. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or naming convention.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the collection feels like an arbitrary bundle of unrelated utilities rather than a focused server, making the count seem heavier than justified.
The tools span URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and hashing, but no coherent domain emerges. As a result, it is unclear what workflow is being supported, and obvious coverage gaps exist for any single intended purpose.