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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a concrete behavioral trait ('No identifiers are retained'), which is valuable for privacy-sensitive inputs. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the inputs, whether external calls are made, or what response the agent should expect.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy statement earns its place. Nothing is redundant or wordy, even though the content is sparse in substance.
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?
The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains what the classification output looks like, what categories exist, or what the tool actually evaluates. An agent cannot predict the result of the call or confidently interpret the response.
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's phrase 'this request' loosely groups the parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema about how each parameter is used or how they combine into a classification.
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 and object ('Show how this request is classified') but leaves the key meaning vague: what 'this request' refers to, what classification categories exist, and how the tool name 'compatibility' relates. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like validate-json or citation.
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 the sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternatives. The privacy note hints that it may be safe for sensitive input, but that is not enough to route an agent to the right tool.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all dissect URLs/hostnames, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status reporting. compatibility is too vague to disambiguate, so an agent could easily pick the wrong URL-analysis tool.
All names are lowercase and hyphen-separated, which is readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun while citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog are nouns. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'JSON Check' only validate-json is on-topic. The remaining nine are unrelated URL, HTTP, and time utilities, making the toolset feel like a grab bag rather than a scoped set.
As a JSON-checking server it is severely incomplete: only a boolean validity check is offered, with no schema validation, formatting, or JSON-path operations. As a general URL/HTTP utility it also lacks HTTP body access, redirect handling, and timezone conversion, so common workflows will hit dead ends.