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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Short catalog' hints at an informational, read-only operation, but the description does not say what the tool returns, whether it makes network requests based on url/host, or whether it has side effects or limits. The json parameter mention of 'discarded after the check' in the schema adds context, but the description itself does not.
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 one sentence and is compact, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the meaning of the tool name and contributes no operational information, so the brevity does not serve the agent.
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 has 4 optional parameters with no explained relationship to the stated purpose, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning about how url, host, json, or zone relate to a status-code catalog, but per the rubric the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 essentially restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names a subject but no action, and it fails to reconcile the subject with the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone), which appear unrelated to a status-code catalog. An agent cannot determine what invoking this tool accomplishes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.). The description gives no conditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over the others.
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 are distinct, but several overlap around URLs and time: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time overlap in purpose. The compatibility tool is especially vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names are mostly lowercase and hyphenated, but the set mixes noun-style names like citation, timezone, and status-catalog with verb-style names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count on its own, but the set feels scattershot relative to the server name 'ISO country US,' which implies a focused country-data service. Only one tool actually relates to the country domain, while the rest span unrelated web, URL, time, and JSON utilities.
As a collection of lightweight, privacy-oriented utilities, the surface is reasonably broad. However, the country-data aspect is severely thin with only cc-us, and there are notable gaps like DNS or HTTP header inspection if this is meant to be a general web-utility server.