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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is a 'short catalog', leaving unclear how inputs are used, what output to expect, and whether the operation involves network calls or local lookup. This is a notable gap.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core topic: HTTP status codes. It could be expanded to include a verb or relation to the inputs, but as concise it is efficient.
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 output schema, no annotations, and many siblings that overlap on those parameters. The description fails to explain why these particular parameters are relevant or what output the agent should expect. This is incomplete for a tool with multiple optional inputs.
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 for all four parameters, so the schema already explains url, host, json, and zone. The description adds only that the tool is a catalog of HTTP status codes, which does not clarify how any of these parameters connect to the catalog. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 indicates the resource (common HTTP status codes) and implies a catalog/retrieval function, but it lacks a verb and doesn't specify what operation is performed. It doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools that share overlapping parameters like url, host, json, and zone.
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 like citation, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description gives no context for selecting this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
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 have clearly distinct outputs: URL metadata, URL normalization, hostname labels, robots inspection, HTTP status catalog, time lookups, JSON validation, and hex encoding. The main ambiguity is between citation and normalize-url, which both return host/scheme information, and between timezone and utc-time, though the descriptions help clarify their different outputs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, giving a surface-level consistency. However, the set mixes nouns like citation and timezone, verb-object forms like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and the unusual hex-ok, so there is no consistent naming pattern.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the well-scoped range. The tools span URL, time, and data utility categories without feeling redundant, though the breadth suggests a general-purpose utility server rather than a tightly focused one.
The set covers common URL, time, and simple data-validation needs, but the overall domain is broad and somewhat unclear. Obvious companion operations are missing, such as hex decoding, timezone conversion, or more detailed request inspection beyond the vague compatibility tool.