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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, or any side effects. The only hint is 'Short catalog' implying limited coverage, which is minimal.
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 appropriately brief at one sentence, but it is under-informative. It is concise without being substantive, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's behavior.
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 output schema, no annotations, and a schema containing four unrelated parameters, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or any behavioral details needed to invoke it correctly.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) appear copy-pasted from other tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone) and do not align with a catalog of HTTP status codes. The description adds no clarifying meaning about how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, creating confusion.
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' conveys that this is a reference tool for status codes, but it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., lookup, retrieve, list). It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'http-204', which may overlap in purpose.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-204, citation, or other siblings. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.