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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add the privacy-relevant statement 'No identifiers are retained,' which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool performs external lookups, modifies state, has rate limits, or returns canned versus live results. The behavioral profile remains largely opaque.
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 a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. The most critical information—what it shows and the privacy guarantee—is front-loaded and the entire text earns its place.
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 is a classification tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what classification output looks like, how the parameters map to classification dimensions, or when this tool is appropriate compared to its siblings, so the context is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 all four parameters and their expected content. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('how this request is classified'), but the classification concept is vague—it doesn't explain what kind of classification or how it relates to the tool name. It also fails to differentiate itself from siblings like citation, domain-shape, status, or validate-json, without which an agent cannot confidently select this tool.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, alternative conditions, or examples of appropriate requests, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the tool name.
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: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, timezone and utc-time both return current time, and compatibility's classification is unclear next to status-catalog. The broad mix of currency, time, URL, and HTTP tools makes selection ambiguous.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-noun pattern. Vague names like citation and compatibility sit beside concrete names like status-catalog and utc-time, making the naming feel arbitrary.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but only one tool relates to the server's stated 'Currency USD' domain. The count is padded with unrelated utilities across timezones, URLs, robots, and JSON, so it does not fit the server's apparent scope.
For a currency-related server, the surface is almost entirely missing: only fx-usd exists, with no conversion, rates, formatting, or currency list. Even as a general utility set, it has no coherent domain and many natural operations are absent.