list_codesBrowse all available HTTP status codes with descriptions and cat image URLs. Use to find the right code for your status or explore available options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | List of common HTTP status codes with cat images | |
| count | Yes | Total number of common HTTP status codes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "codes": {
+ "description": "List of common HTTP status codes with cat images",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Human-readable description of the code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "image_url": {
+ "description": "URL to the http.cat image for this code",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "description",
+ "image_url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total number of common HTTP status codes",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "codes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns all codes with descriptions and cat image URLs, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 only two sentences, both of which earn their place: the first states the action and content, the second clarifies the intended use. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.
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 simple tool with no parameters, and the annotations cover safety aspects. The description gives sufficient context about what the tool returns and when to use it. The output schema likely covers return structure, so no further detail is needed.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any parameter-specific information, which is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse all available HTTP status codes with descriptions and cat image URLs.' It uses a specific verb ('browse') and a specific resource ('all available HTTP status codes'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_status_cat by emphasizing the comprehensive listing of all codes.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use to find the right code for your status or explore available options.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 have overlapping or near-identical purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently equivalent, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunities. Descriptions help somewhat, but boundaries remain fuzzy for agents.
Tool names follow no consistent convention: some are verb-first (get_status_cat, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research), and many use domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, pipeworx_feedback). While snake_case is maintained throughout, the structural pattern is mixed and unpredictable.
At 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range (3-15). The count is inflated by multiple overlapping meta-tools and unrelated utility groups (HTTP cats, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel bloated rather than focused.
The server name 'httpcat' implies HTTP status-cat functionality, but only 2 of 33 tools serve that purpose, leaving the named domain largely uncovered. As a general-purpose data server, the collection still has gaps (e.g., no direct trading, no general web search) and appears to be a random assortment of features rather than a coherent product.