Skip to main content
Glama

HTTP 307 temporary-redirect

status-catalog

Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 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"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says the tool is a 'short catalog'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it accepts or discards the provided url/host/json/zone values, or what the output format looks like.

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 terse and contains no wasted words, but brevity is not conciseness when essential information is absent. A single noun phrase does not provide enough structure or actionable content for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

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, and four seemingly unrelated optional parameters, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot determine what request to build, what response to expect, or how this tool differs from its siblings.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no connection between parameters like 'json' or 'zone' and the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the semantic relationship unclear.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') but lacks a clear action verb such as retrieve, list, or lookup. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'http-307', which likely covers a specific status code, and the input schema fields (url, host, json, zone) do not obviously relate to status codes.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-307, citation, or validate-json. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between the sibling tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.