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 does add one useful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained'), but it does not disclose whether the operation is a local read-only check, what a classification outcome looks like, or whether any input is validated against external services.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. It earns a high conciseness score, though the brevity comes at the cost of specificity, which is penalized in other dimensions.
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?
With four heterogeneous optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain return values, expected input combinations, or the meaning of 'classified' enough for an agent to reliably call the tool or interpret the result.
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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.
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 ('show') and an object ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a tautology, but 'classification' is left undefined. It does not say what compatibility means, what categories are returned, or how this differs from sibling tools such as 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no mention of which input should be provided for which use case, and no exclusions. An agent must guess whether this is for URLs, hosts, JSON, timezones, or some combination.
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 distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url both return URL components and overlap on host/scheme. The time-related tools (iana-zones, timezone, utc-time) share a domain, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent may struggle to select it correctly.
All names are lowercase and kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes noun labels like citation and timezone with verb phrases like inspect-robots and validate-json, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'UUID Mint' and contains a loose collection of URL, time, HTTP, JSON, and UUID utilities. The count is not excessive, but the tools do not form a cohesive, well-scoped set.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so common workflows are only partially covered. For example, there is UUID generation but no UUID validation, timezone lookup but no timezone conversion, and URL inspection but no full URL parsing or content retrieval.