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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key privacy behavior ('No identifiers are retained'), which is helpful, but it fails to explain what the tool does with the input (e.g., does it validate format? does it trigger side effects like logging or calling external services?).
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 at one sentence with a follow-up clarification. It front-loads the main action and adds the key behavioral note without waste.
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 it has 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns, how the classification is presented, or what 'compatibility' refers to. This is insufficient for an agent to call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides sufficient meaning for simple string inputs.
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' indicates the tool provides a classification but is vague about what 'classification' means (e.g., compatibility check, formatting validation, risk assessment). It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria are provided. The description doesn't mention alternatives or cases where this tool should not be used, leaving the agent to infer when to call 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.
The time tools overlap heavily: timezone can replicate utc-time and tz-america-los-angeles, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one. The URL/HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but compatibility is vague and domain-shape/normalize-url both operate on hostname structure.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated style, which is clean and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some names are verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) while others are bare nouns (citation, timezone, utc-time), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in absolute terms, but the set is divided between time-related tools and unrelated URL/HTTP inspection utilities. Under the 'clock' identity, the count feels inflated and the purpose is diluted.
For a clock service, the core time queries are covered, but there is no timezone conversion or exhaustive zone listing. If viewed as a network-inspection suite, some exclusions are intentional, yet compatibility is underspecified and the overall domain remains unclear.