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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' and the schema's 'discarded after the check' reinforces a stateless/privacy behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains.
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 very short and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose and adds the key privacy trait in a second sentence. No filler exists, though the brevity contributes to the vague purpose.
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 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description should explain the classification semantics and expected result. Instead it only says 'Show how this request is classified' and adds a privacy note, leaving an agent unable to predict behavior or output.
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 schema already documents url, host, json, and zone. The description adds only a privacy guarantee and does not explain how the parameters relate to the classification or which ones are meaningful together, so it stays at the baseline.
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 a resource ('this request'), but 'how this request is classified' is vague: it does not say what classification scheme, categories, or compatibility decision is being produced. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as validate-json or domain-shape.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, which parameter combinations are appropriate, or what kind of request should be sent. It does not mention any of the sibling tools or exclusion conditions.
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 in purpose, especially citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape, all of which inspect URLs or hostnames. The time-related tools utc-time and year-utc also overlap because a timestamp contains the year. Other tools are more distinct, but the boundary between these clusters is not always clear.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives some visual consistency. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object names (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are standalone nouns or noun-noun compounds (citation, timezone, status-catalog, year-utc). This makes the naming readable but not predictably consistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility-style server, neither too sparse nor overwhelming. The count feels slightly inflated by the mixed domains, but no individual tool is redundant enough to cut. Overall, the count is appropriate for a general-purpose utilities server.
The set covers a few small domains—URL inspection, time/timezone, HTTP status, and JSON validation—but none are fully fleshed out. For example, there is no timezone conversion or date formatting tool, and URL tools lack any operation for actual page retrieval. While the tools are self-contained, the overall surface feels more like a collection of samples than a complete workflow.