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 any behavioral aspects such as side effects, read-only nature, or potential errors. The tool's safety profile is entirely 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, brief sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks essential details about the tool's operation and parameter usage, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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 is missing critical context: no output schema, no explanation of how the parameters relate to the catalog, and no indication of what the tool actually does with the provided inputs. The description and schema together are insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Each parameter has a description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but these descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The mismatch between the parameter names/descriptions and the tool's function makes it impossible to infer how they should be used.
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 the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which identifies the resource but not the specific action (e.g., lookup, list, retrieve). The parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with HTTP status codes, making the purpose even less clear.
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 (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). The description does not indicate the intended use case or context, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
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, though 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handle URLs, and 'timezone'/'utc-time' overlap in time handling. 'compatibility' is vague but not truly duplicate.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-led ('inspect-robots', 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and noun-led ('citation', 'timezone', 'status-catalog') patterns; 'cc-de' is an outlier.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but the server name implies a narrow ISO country (DE) purpose while most tools are unrelated web/time/JSON utilities, making the set feel mismatched.
As a country-ISO resource, only cc-de covers that purpose; as a general utility set, it lacks many standard web operations (e.g., actual HTTP fetch, DNS, text processing), so completeness is poor for the apparent stated purpose.