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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers one useful trait ('No identifiers are retained') but says nothing about side effects, network calls, validation behavior, or what 'classified' entails. A privacy guarantee alone is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences with the core statement front-loaded and a useful privacy detail second. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity trades away needed semantics.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool without an output schema and without annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't clarify the return format, how the parameters are consumed, or what classifications are possible. An agent cannot predict the tool's behavior from this definition.
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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description doesn't explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to compatibility classification, but the schema adequately documents each field's format and purpose.
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 says 'Show how this request is classified' with the tool named 'compatibility', but it never defines what classification means or what the output looks like. It's close to a tautology because 'classified' adds little clarity over the name 'compatibility', and there's no hint about what compatibilities are being assessed.
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 siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. No conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives make an agent guess which tool handles URL, JSON, or timezone checks.
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 around URL and request inspection: citation and normalize-url both return host/scheme, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status output. The vague compatibility tool compounds the problem, though the time and format-validation tools are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the set mixes imperative verb-noun names (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, compatibility, timezone, ulid-shape). This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and each has a separable utility. The count itself is fine, but the server appears to have drifted from the 'ULID shape check' purpose into a general web/time/format utility bag.
As a privacy-focused inspection toolkit, it covers URL, domain, robots, time, status codes, ULID, and JSON shape checks. However, there are notable gaps such as missing common format validators (UUID, email), no URL encoding/decoding, and the compatibility tool feels like an unexplained dead end.