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 exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, side effects, or output format. The description is minimal and does not clarify what the tool does with its inputs.
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 brief and free of unnecessary words, but it is too sparse to be useful. It reads as a fragment rather than a clear tool specification.
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 appears to involve HTTP status codes but the parameters and description suggest a different or mixed purpose. Without further detail, an agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke it.
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 schema includes four parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions (URL normalization, hostname, JSON validation, timezone) are unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog. This mismatch provides misleading semantics for the parameters.
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 identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes but fails to state an action or how the provided parameters relate to that resource. It is too vague to distinguish from other tools without external context.
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 given for when to use this tool versus any alternative. The sibling tools suggest varied functions, but the description offers no conditions or selection criteria.
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 target distinct operations—text counting, JSON validation, robots inspection, time utilities—and descriptions clarify the differences. The main risk is citation versus normalize-url, since both describe URL components, and timezone versus utc-time could occasionally cause misselection.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase, but they mix styles: verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json, noun compounds like char-count and status-catalog, and single nouns like citation and compatibility. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 11 tools, the set is well within the ideal range and each utility addresses a separate use case. No obvious redundant or filler tools are present.
The surface covers text validation, URL inspection, robots, time, and HTTP status reasonably well for a privacy-focused utility server. Missing conveniences like timezone conversion or URL encoding are minor and can be worked around.