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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. A one-line 'Short catalog' reveals nothing about side effects, return values, error handling, or execution behavior. The only behavioral hint ('discarded after the check') lives in the schema for the json parameter, not in the description.
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 text is short and void of fluff, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single fragmentary sentence 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' provides almost no operational content for a tool with four heterogeneous parameters.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a clear sibling set, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not state what the tool returns, how parameters map to behavior, whether parameters are alternative modes or combinable inputs, or when the tool is applicable.
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 baseline is 3. Each parameter has a reasonable standalone description (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). However, the description adds zero connection between these parameters and the tool's stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog — the semantic glue is entirely missing.
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 (HTTP status codes) but lacks any verb indicating the action — does the tool list codes, look them up, or generate them? It also does not differentiate itself from siblings like citation, validate-json, or timezone, whose parameter names (url, host, json, zone) seem to be borrowed from them, making the actual purpose confusing.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no parameters, no context, and no conditions, leaving an agent unable to decide between status-catalog and its siblings. Zero guidance.
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.
Several tools occupy overlapping URL/time territory: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all parse hostnames, while timezone and utc-time both give current time. The descriptions help distinguish them, but compatibility and hex-16 are vague enough that an agent could struggle to select them confidently.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun, while citation, compatibility, status-catalog, and timezone are noun-only. There is no predictable verb_noun scheme, but the readable kebab-case style prevents it from feeling chaotic.
11 tools is within the normal 3-15 range and the server covers several small utility subdomains. However, a few tools like hex-16 and compatibility feel tangential or underdeveloped, making the set slightly less cohesive than ideal.
The set covers a reasonable range of stateless web/request utilities: URL parsing, HTTP status, robots inspection, time, and JSON validation. Gaps exist, such as no way to inspect query parameters or request headers, and the time utilities feel disconnected from the URL-focused tools, so the overall surface is moderate rather than complete.