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?
The description includes a data-handling note ('No identifiers are retained') and the parameter description for 'json' mentions 'discarded after the check', providing some transparency about data retention. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any side effects, permissions, or if it is read-only, so transparency is incomplete.
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, using a single sentence and a short privacy note. It contains no redundant words or unnecessary detail, making it easy to read quickly.
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 description is incomplete in context: it does not explain how the four seemingly unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) contribute to the classification, nor does it describe any output or result format. The lack of output schema further compounds the incompleteness, leaving the agent without a full picture of the tool's behavior.
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?
Each parameter has a short description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name'), which clarifies the parameter's type or typical content. However, these descriptions do not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's classification purpose, leaving their functional role unclear.
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 states the tool 'shows how this request is classified' but does not specify what kind of classification is performed, nor how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. The verb 'show' is vague and leaves the tool's core function ambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool selection.
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 are mostly distinct, but `timezone` and `tz-europe-amsterdam` overlap heavily, and `domain-shape`/`normalize-url` both inspect hostnames, creating potential ambiguity.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but they mix noun labels (`citation`, `status-catalog`, `timezone`) with verb-action names (`inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, `validate-json`), so no consistent pattern emerges.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the set combines URL inspection, timezone, and JSON validation unrelated to the apparent clock/time focus, making the count feel padded.
For a clock/time server, it provides current UTC, named timezone, and Europe/Amsterdam time, but lacks conversion or formatting operations; the unrelated URL/JSON tools do not fill that gap.