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. It adds one concrete behavioral claim — 'No identifiers are retained' — which signals a stateless, privacy-preserving operation, and 'Show' implies read-only. However, it never states whether the tool makes external calls, how it handles invalid input, or what side effects (if any) exist, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.
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 only two short sentences, both of which earn their place: the first states the operation, the second states the privacy behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The agent is not told what classification output to expect, how the parameters map to the classification, or when this tool is appropriate, so a caller cannot reliably invoke or interpret the result.
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 schema already documents url, host, json, and zone. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used, which one is required for the classification, or what formats are accepted.
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 uses a clear verb ('Show') and names a resource ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'classified' is never defined — the agent is not told what classification scheme or categories are involved, and nothing distinguishes this from sibling tools like citation or validate-json. This is a vague purpose rather than a precise one.
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 guidance is given about when to invoke this tool instead of a sibling. The description names no alternative tools, no conditions, and no exclusions, and the four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) leave the intended input context ambiguous.
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 timezone tools overlap heavily: `timezone` already supports named IANA zones, making `utc-time` and `tz-america-new-york` largely redundant. The URL tools also blur together (`citation` vs `normalize-url` both return host/scheme information), and `compatibility` is too vague to confidently distinguish from the other request-classification tools.
All names share a lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix conventions: verb-prefixed tools like `inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, and `validate-json` sit alongside noun phrases like `domain-shape`, `status-catalog`, and `utc-time`, plus single-word names like `timezone` and `citation`. The names are readable and predictable in format, but not in action pattern.
Eleven tools is not an extreme number, but the set is not well-scoped: it mixes time, URL normalization, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation concerns. The count feels like several small toolkits merged into one server rather than a focused tool collection where each tool clearly earns its place.
There is no coherent domain to call complete. As a clock server, it lacks timezone conversion, offsets, or date formatting; as a web utility server, it lacks common operations like fetching content or inspecting headers. Significant operations for either inferred purpose are missing, so agents would likely hit dead ends.