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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'No identifiers are retained' adds one useful privacy trait, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are actually used, what side effects occur, or what the classification output looks like.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words, and the privacy note is useful. However, it is concise at the expense of substance—conciseness cannot compensate for the absence of necessary meaning.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, four heterogeneous optional parameters, and ten siblings, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'compatibility' means, what inputs are relevant, what the result is, or when to invoke this tool.
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 all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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' has a verb and object, but 'this request' and 'classified' are undefined. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like validate-json, domain-shape, or normalize-url, which also process requests.
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 rather than one of the ten siblings, no exclusion conditions, and no alternatives named. The description merely states an action without contextualizing 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.
Tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-asia-singapore' overlap in purpose, though the latter is location-specific. Similarly, 'normalize-url' and 'inspect-robots' both relate to URLs but serve different functions. Overall, most tools are distinguishable but a few could cause selection ambiguity.
Names are highly inconsistent: some are verb phrases (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'), some are nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'iana-zones'), and there's no unified pattern. Hyphenation is used but not systematically, and the mix of imperative and descriptive naming makes the set feel arbitrary.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a multi-purpose utility server. However, the set feels padded with niche tools like 'tz-asia-singapore' while lacking broader coverage, making the count slightly high for the apparent scope.
The tools cover disparate domains (URLs, timezones, JSON, HTTP status) without forming a coherent service. For a clock/timezone server, there are redundant tools but no common operations like list all timezones or convert between zones. For a URL utility, missing fetch or parse variants. The domain is unclear, leading to significant gaps.