Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Short catalog' weakly implies a read-only lookup, but it does not state the output shape, whether the parameters affect the result, or why a URL, host, JSON payload, and timezone are accepted.
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 single sentence is terse but under-specificed rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the resource but omits the action, return value, and parameter semantics needed to use the tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and ten siblings, this description is not nearly complete enough. It fails to explain the catalog's selection criteria, output, or parameter roles, and it leaves the apparent contradiction with the input schema unexplained.
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?
Although every parameter has a schema description, the tool description adds no meaning and creates a mismatch: status-code cataloging is unrelated to URL normalization, hostname lookup, JSON validation, or timezone names. An agent cannot infer which of the four optional parameters are relevant or how they map to the catalog.
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 names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') but lacks an explicit verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell whether this returns a list, looks up a code, or validates a response. It also doesn't distinguish the tool from siblings, and the input schema's url/host/json/zone properties have no obvious connection to a catalog of status 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?
No sentence or condition explains when to use status-catalog instead of the sibling tools. The optional parameters suggest multiple contexts, but there is no guidance about what input should accompany the catalog lookup, making correct selection and invocation guesswork.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as byte-count, validate-json, and utc-time. However, citation and normalize-url both handle URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide time information, which could lead to occasional misselection.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (byte-count, timezone, status-catalog) while others are verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no clear verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count for a utility server covering URLs, time, robots, and data validation. Each tool does something different, though a few are quite trivial, making the set slightly broad but not excessive.
The tools cover several common utility categories like URL normalization, current time, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. However, the scope is broad and shallow, leaving obvious gaps such as domain lookups, HTTP request mechanics, or date formatting, and there is no unifying workflow to judge full coverage.