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 note 'No identifiers are retained' provides some transparency about data handling, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what happens to the input data beyond classification.
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 concise, with two short sentences that are easy to read and do not waste words.
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 for an agent to use correctly. It does not specify the expected input format, the output structure, or the meaning of the classification result, leaving the tool's functionality ambiguous.
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?
The description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) influence the classification. The schema descriptions appear generic and are likely copied from other tools, so they do not add meaningful context for this tool.
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 it 'shows how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification is performed or what criteria are used. It lacks specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions that would make it the appropriate choice.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: timezone, tz-europe-berlin, and utc-time all return current time, and citation/normalize-url both analyze URL components. 'compatibility' is too vague to distinguish from the other HTTP/classification tools.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent delimiter style, but the pattern mixes verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun phrases (citation, compatibility, status-catalog). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server is named as a clock and only four tools (timezone, tz-europe-berlin, utc-time, iana-zones) support that purpose. The rest are unrelated web/HTTP/JSON utilities, making the set poorly scoped.
For the clock domain, time lookup is covered but timezone conversion is missing. For the broader web/HTTP utilities hinted at by the other tools, the surface is incomplete and lacks a clear lifecycle or workflow, so agents would hit dead ends.