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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that identifiers are not retained, which is a privacy detail, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the response format 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 short and to the point, but the brevity contributes to its vagueness. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough substance to be useful.
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's complexity is moderate given the four parameters, but the description fails to explain how 'classification' relates to them. Without that context, an agent cannot determine what output to expect or how to invoke the tool properly.
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 brief description (e.g., 'url' as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but the combination of url, host, json, and zone is odd for a 'compatibility' tool. The individual meanings are clear, yet their relationship to the tool's purpose is not explained.
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 verb 'Show' is vague, and 'how this request is classified' gives only a general sense of the tool's purpose. It does not specify what kind of classification or what the output represents.
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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url). The description is too ambiguous to infer appropriate usage conditions.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., timezone vs. normalize-url). The only minor overlap is between 'timezone' and 'tz-europe-madrid', but they differ in generality (any named zone vs. a fixed zone).
All tool names follow the same lowercase, hyphen-separated pattern (e.g., 'tz-europe-madrid', 'utc-time', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb usage.
11 tools is a reasonable number. The set includes several non-clock utilities (URL, JSON, robots) that broaden scope beyond the server's name, but the count itself is not excessive or too sparse.
For a clock/time server, core operations are covered: UTC time, named timezone, and a specific fixed zone. The 'iana-zones' tool aids discovery, though a full zone list or conversion functionality is missing. Extra web/JSON tools are unrelated but not a defect.