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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or any safety constraints, placing the full burden on the vague description.
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 short but not effectively structured; it fails to front-load any actionable information and omits critical details that would make the tool usable.
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 lacks any explanation of how the parameters contribute to the catalog or what operation it performs, making it impossible to understand or correctly invoke.
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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') are irrelevant to HTTP status codes and do not explain how they relate to the catalog, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' suggests a reference resource, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes, leaving the tool's actual function ambiguous and misleading.
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 alternatives like validate-json or normalize-url; the description lacks any use cases, exclusions, or contextual triggers.
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 functions, but names like 'citation', 'compatibility', and 'cc-br' are vague and could be confused with one another or with URL-related tools. The intended purpose of several tools is not immediately clear from the names.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb-noun patterns ('normalize-url', 'validate-json'), while others are bare nouns or adjectives ('citation', 'compatibility', 'timezone'), and one is a specific code ('cc-br'). No consistent naming convention is applied across the set.
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical 3–15 range and does not feel excessive. The breadth is somewhat wide, but the number itself is reasonable for a multi-purpose utility server.
The tool set appears to cover disjoint areas (URLs, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, country codes) without a clear unifying domain, so it is hard to assess whether it is complete. Several related operations are missing (e.g., URL encoding/decoding, HTTP request execution), leaving the set feeling partial and ad hoc.