Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country IN

status-catalog

Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
zoneNoIANA timezone name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description gives no information about side effects, data access, mutation, or any behavioral characteristics. With no annotations to supplement, the tool's behavior is completely opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but fails to convey any actionable meaning. It is concise in length but not in clarity, making it ineffective despite being short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does not explain what the tool does with the provided parameters, what output to expect, or how it relates to the sibling tools. It is incomplete even for a simple tool, leaving the agent with no basis for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although every parameter has a description, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are generic and appear unrelated to the stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The descriptions do not clarify how these inputs are used or what they mean in the context of the tool, so they add no semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') that does not state any action or behavior. It is unclear whether the tool lists, retrieves, or looks up status codes, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 or under what conditions it should be invoked. The description lacks any context about the problem it solves or how it fits into a workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs and can return overlapping fields, while compatibility is vaguely described. The remaining tools are mostly distinct, but the URL-related overlap could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern—e.g., inspect-robots and normalize-url are verb-first, while citation and utc-time are noun-like. Names such as cc-in and compatibility do not clearly signal their action.

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, the mix of country, URL, time, and JSON utilities suggests a broader toolkit than the server name implies.

Completeness3/5

As a set of read-only metadata and validation helpers, it covers URL, HTTP, robots, time, JSON, and a single country lookup. The domain is not clearly defined, and only one country record is exposed, so some workflows may lack a matching tool.