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, and it discloses none. It does not state whether the tool performs an action with the input parameters, whether it is read-only, whether network calls occur, or what side effects exist. The description is purely a noun phrase with no behavioral content.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the operational substance needed for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool, so the brevity is not a virtue here.
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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance. The description does not explain how the HTTP status catalog relates to the URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters, making the tool effectively impossible to use correctly from the provided description alone.
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 the parameter schema already documents url, host, json, and zone. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and fails to explain why these parameters are relevant to an HTTP status code catalog, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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' essentially restates the tool name 'status-catalog' without providing a verb or actionable behavior. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like citation, normalize-url, or validate-json, and it leaves unclear how the tool's parameters relate to the catalog.
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 alternatives. The phrase 'short catalog' hints at reference lookup, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion, and no sibling tools are mentioned.
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.
The time-related tools (epoch-ms, utc-time, timezone, iana-zones) are distinguishable, but several URL tools overlap in input and output: citation and normalize-url both expose host/URL components, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. An agent could misselect between the URL inspection tools despite helpful descriptions.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: noun phrases like epoch-ms, utc-time, and status-catalog mix with imperative verbs like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. This inconsistency makes the naming style readable but unpredictable.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count on its own, but the set is not tightly scoped to the server's apparent identity of Unix epoch milliseconds; it mixes time, URL, robots, status code, and JSON utilities. This feels like a general utility grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.
For the time domain implied by the server name, there are no epoch-to-date conversions, formatting helpers, or timezone offset details, leaving obvious gaps. The URL/request utilities are similarly fragmentary, covering shape and status but not full content retrieval or more useful metadata, so the surface feels incomplete for any single stated purpose.