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 states that the tool is a short catalog of HTTP status codes; it does not disclose whether the tool performs reads, looks up statuses, validates inputs, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that also accepts parameters like url, json, and zone.
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 filler words, which is efficient and front-loaded. It is concise but under-specified, though the dimension measures structure and economy rather than depth, and the one sentence does earn its place.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters whose relationship to the stated purpose is unexplained, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The tool's behavior and the role of its parameters remain ambiguous, making this a weak context for confident tool selection.
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 each parameter has a baseline explanation. However, the description does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the parameter semantics disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load, but no added meaning is provided.
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 names a specific resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') with a clear noun, so an agent can infer what the tool provides. It does not use a strong action verb, but the resource scope is distinct enough from the sibling tools (citation, compatibility) to be identifiable.
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 the sibling tools like citation, compatibility, or geospatial tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent is left to infer applicability from the name alone.
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 overlap in the URL/HTTP space, especially citation and normalize-url both returning host/scheme information, with inspect-robots and status-catalog adding to the confusion. The timezone tools are distinct, but compatibility is too vague to place, and the overall set makes tool selection ambiguous.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-object commands like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are bare nouns like citation and timezone, or noun phrases like status-catalog and iana-zones. There is no consistent verb_noun convention or recognizable family pattern.
For a server advertised as 'Hex color to RGB,' 11 tools is far more than needed, and only hex-rgb actually matches that purpose. While 11 is not an extreme number in general, the unrelated utilities make the server feel bloated and mis-scoped.
The set has no coherent domain to assess against, spanning URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, robots.txt, and color conversion without covering any one area deeply. For the stated hex-to-RGB purpose it is technically complete, but for the apparent mixed utility scope there are clear gaps such as timezone conversion or URL encoding.