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, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the tool is a 'short catalog,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not specify output format, whether parameters filter the catalog, or any side effects. The description is silent on how the tool behaves with inputs, leaving agents to guess.
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, sparse sentence. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. The lack of structure or additional context means the description does not earn its place; it is too brief to be useful.
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?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, the expected output, or any constraints. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional information.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter has a basic explanation. The tool description, however, adds nothing about how these parameters relate to the catalog. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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' indicates the tool provides a catalog of status codes, which is a clear resource. However, it does not explain how the four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used, leaving the tool's exact function ambiguous. It does distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, but the lack of parameter context undermines clarity.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task, especially since the parameters seem unrelated to a status-code catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.