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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide one useful privacy fact ('No identifiers are retained'), but it does not explain side effects, whether inputs are discarded, what kind of response to expect, or what 'classified' actually means. This is too thin for a tool with four heterogeneous parameters.
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 free of filler, and the second sentence adds a privacy-relevant behavioral fact. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise: the first sentence is too vague to carry the meaning it should. It is not bloated, but it is not sufficient either.
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?
This tool has no annotations, no output schema, four optional parameters, and a set of specialized siblings. The description does not explain expected output, how the parameters select behavior, or why compatibility is the right choice instead of a sibling tool. Too much necessary context is missing.
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-level detail. The description does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to classification, but the schema already documents each parameter individually. No additional semantics are provided 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 gives a verb ('Show') and a subject ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is vague: it never says what classification means, what inputs are used, or what output is produced. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 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 about when to use this tool versus the specialized sibling tools. The description implies some kind of request classification, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether to call compatibility or validate-json for a JSON input.
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.
A few clusters overlap—citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time—but the descriptions generally make the intended output clear. The vague 'compatibility' tool adds some ambiguity, but no tools are truly indistinguishable.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), while others are noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog) or single nouns (citation, timezone). This is readable but not predictably consistent.
11 tools is within the reasonable 3-15 range and each tool has a distinct purpose. However, the set spans URL inspection, time, UUID, JSON, and HTTP status, so it feels slightly broader than the server name implies.
For a shape and inspection utility server, the main categories are covered: URL normalization, robots.txt inspection, HTTP status, timezone lookup, current time, JSON validation, and UUID shape checking. Minor gaps exist like redirect chains or JSON schema validation, but the core surface is not severely incomplete.