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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context with 'No identifiers are retained', implying a stateless privacy guarantee, and 'Show how' indicates an analysis or display operation rather than a mutation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any external lookup, whether results are deterministic, or whether it only returns a categorization without processing the request. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a distinct privacy guarantee. This is appropriately concise and well structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the purpose and a privacy trait but does not say what the returned classification looks like, what 'classification' means in practice, or how the agent should decide between this tool and its siblings. The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall behavior remains under-specified for a complex decision.
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?
All four parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond a general reference to 'this request', which does not clarify how url, host, json, or zone map to the classification behavior. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameter semantics adequately.
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 specific action, 'Show how this request is classified', which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that likely perform normalization, validation, or citation. However, 'classified' is a bit vague—it does not specify what categories or dimensions the classification produces. Overall it is clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize, validate, or citation. It does not state what input types are appropriate or what 'this request' refers to in terms of the available parameters. The agent must infer usage from the schema and tool name alone.
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.
Tools cluster into URL/HTTP and time-related groups, but within each cluster the purposes are mostly distinguishable. citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all touch hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and weekday-utc all return current time data, so an agent could briefly hesitate when selecting among them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern. Some tools use verb-object naming like inspect-robots and normalize-url, while others are plain nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog, making the set feel inconsistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and does not feel bloated. However, the selection spans many unrelated concerns—URL parsing, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, HTTP status—so the set feels broader than a single focused purpose.
For a privacy-focused URL/HTTP utility set, there are notable gaps such as no redirect or header inspection, and for time utilities there is no timezone conversion tool. The surface covers basic atomic operations but lacks the cohesive lifecycle or workflow coverage that would make it feel complete.