Skip to main content
Glama

HTTP 204 no-content

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

http-204

Meaning of HTTP 204.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the meaning. It does not mention whether arguments are ignored, whether the call is read-only, or what kind of response is returned; the schema descriptions ('discarded', 'no disk access') are not in the tool description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and free of redundant words, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and omits information that the tool needs. It is under-specified rather than usefully concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, 10 unrelated-looking optional parameters, and a sibling status-catalog, a single fragment saying 'Meaning of HTTP 204' is not enough for an agent to know the call contract, return shape, or relationship to alternatives. The definition is largely a placeholder.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 10 optional parameters is already individually documented. The description adds no parameter guidance, but the baseline for high coverage is 3; it neither clarifies that the params are irrelevant nor contributes beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the subject (HTTP 204) and a minimal intent ('meaning of'), so an agent can infer the tool explains status code 204. It is, however, a noun phrase rather than an actionable sentence and does not distinguish this tool from sibling status-catalog, so it earns only a mid score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. With status-catalog present as a sibling, an agent has no basis for deciding whether to call http-204 or the broader catalog; the only implied usage is the 204 reference in the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All HTTP 204 no-content toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources