Skip to main content
Glama

America/Denver clock

compatibility

Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
zoneNoIANA timezone name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The statement 'No identifiers are retained' provides some transparency about data handling, but does not describe other behaviors such as side effects, read-only nature, or whether any state is modified. With no annotations present, the description carries partial responsibility for behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence, and is well-structured. However, it is too brief to convey essential information, balancing conciseness against informativeness poorly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what the classification result looks like, or what the tool actually returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While each parameter has a schema description, these descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') do not align with the tool's stated purpose of classification. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving their role in classification unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

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 what kind of classification or what request is being referenced. It lacks a clear verb-resource pairing, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but timezone, tz-america-denver, and utc-time overlap in providing time information, which could cause confusion. The URL-related tools (citation, domain-shape, normalize-url) are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase with hyphens, which is consistent. However, the mix of noun-style (citation, timezone) and verb-noun style (normalize-url, validate-json) names is slightly inconsistent but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The 11 tools cover a focused set of utilities (URL, time, HTTP status, JSON validation) without being excessive. The count is well-suited for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers common URL, time, and validation needs. Minor gaps like a dedicated tool to get current date or to validate URLs exist, but the existing tools handle these indirectly and the surface feels reasonably complete.