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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' which signals privacy behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is read-only, how inputs are handled, or what output the agent should expect.
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 two sentences are compact and front-loaded: the first states the action and the second adds a privacy guarantee. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity does reflect a lack of substantive detail rather than being a model of efficient completeness.
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 tool with four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, when each parameter should be provided, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools.
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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for url, host, json, and zone, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how these four heterogeneous parameters relate to the classification.
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 a verb and resource ('Show how this request is classified'), but 'this request' is vague and the meaning of 'classified' is never defined. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, leaving the agent to guess what compatibility classification actually produces.
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 the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, so the agent cannot determine whether this is the right tool for a given task.
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 are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both return URL-derived fields, and timezone/utc-time overlap in purpose. compatibility is vague enough that an agent could struggle to know when to use it over the URL inspection tools.
Names mix bare nouns (citation, timezone, compatibility) with verb-noun forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the grammatical pattern is not, making the set feel ad hoc.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but the set includes unrelated areas like timezones, HTTP status codes, and JSON validation under a URL Normalize server. Several tools do not clearly earn their place relative to the stated purpose.
The only tool directly addressing the server's core purpose is normalize-url, and it only returns origin, host, and path. Missing URL comparison, query/fragment handling, or rewrite capabilities leaves the main workflow incomplete, while unrelated tools do not fill those gaps.