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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — 'No identifiers are retained' — but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the classification output looks like, how errors are handled, or whether data is sent elsewhere.
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?
Two sentences with no padding; the privacy statement is a distinct, useful addition. Brevity is a virtue here, even though it sacrifices explanatory substance.
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 accepts four heterogeneous optional inputs and has no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to explain how each input is classified and what the result will be. It does not, leaving an agent guessing about the return format and the meaning of 'classified.'
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 that url, host, json, and zone are accepted, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no relationship between these parameters and the classification behavior, leaving it unclear whether they are alternatives or must be combined.
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 specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('how this request is classified'), but the term 'classified' is vague — it doesn't say what kind of classification (validity, compatibility, safety, etc.) or what categories result. It also doesn't distinguish the tool from siblings like validate or normalize, leaving selection uncertain.
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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. With siblings such as validate, normalize, and citation present, an agent has no basis for choosing compatibility over them. The privacy note hints at a context, but it doesn't clarify when this tool should be preferred.
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.
Timezone, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai tools overlap: timezone can replicate the other two by passing a zone name, and citation/normalize-url both return host/scheme information. The compatibility tool is also vague about what it classifies, adding more boundary ambiguity.
Names are all lowercase and hyphenated, but they mix bare nouns like citation and timezone with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hardcoded tz-asia-shanghai also breaks the otherwise readable pattern.
Eleven tools is not extreme as a raw count, but for a server named Asia/Shanghai clock only four tools are time-related. The remaining URL, HTTP, and JSON helpers make the surface feel bloated and misaligned with the stated purpose.
The time domain covers basic zone lookups, UTC, and Asia/Shanghai, but lacks offset/DST details or conversion. The unrelated web/json tools create a second half-baked domain with no clear coverage, so the overall set does not feel complete for any single purpose.