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 only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which hints at privacy but does not clarify whether the tool performs any side effects, modifies inputs, or is read-only. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it omits what the tool actually does with the inputs and what output it produces.
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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a short privacy note. It is well-structured and easy to read with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. The brevity is a strength, though it comes at the cost of clarity.
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 the complexity of having four heterogeneous parameters (URL, host, JSON, timezone), the description is far from complete. It does not explain how these parameters are used, what classification logic is applied, what the output format is, or why the tool is named 'compatibility.' The agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, which meets the baseline score of 3. However, the descriptions like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate' appear borrowed from sibling tools and do not explain how these parameters contribute to the 'compatibility' classification. They add no meaning beyond the schema itself, so no bonus is given.
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' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed or what 'this request' refers to. The tool name 'compatibility' suggests a compatibility check, but the description never mentions compatibility or how the input parameters relate to it. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which have specific purposes.
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 versus any of the sibling tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description gives no indication of the intended use case or scenario, leaving the agent to guess.
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` and `tz-europe-london` both report current time, and `citation`, `normalize-url`, and `domain-shape` all inspect URL components. The mix of URL, HTTP, JSON, and clock tools makes it unclear which tool should be used for a given request.
Tool names mix noun phrases (`citation`, `status-catalog`), hyphenated action verbs (`normalize-url`, `validate-json`), and a specific timezone identifier (`tz-europe-london`). There is no consistent verb-noun or domain-based naming pattern across the set.
The server name suggests a clock/timezone tool, but 11 tools include many unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is far more than needed for the apparent core purpose, and the extra tools add noise rather than value.
For the clock/timezone aspect, the set provides UTC time, named timezone lookup, and a list of IANA zones, which covers basic needs. However, the inclusion of unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON tools makes the completeness of the overall server muddled, and there is no timezone conversion or formatting utility.