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, and the description discloses no behavioral details, such as what it does with the inputs, whether it performs lookups, whether it returns a list, or whether any side effects occur. The description carries the full burden of disclosure and fails to meet it.
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 short and contains no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core phrase, but the lack of a verb and missing behavioral detail limit its value despite its brevity.
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 four unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin to enable correct invocation. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the output looks like, or whether any inputs are even relevant to the stated purpose.
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 all four parameters have descriptions in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify why URL, host, JSON, and zone parameters are relevant to a catalog of HTTP status codes.
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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') that essentially restates the tool name without a verb indicating what action the tool performs. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like citation or validate-json, and the relationship between the stated purpose and the URL/host/json/zone parameters is unclear.
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 or how it differs from the sibling tools. Nothing indicates what situation calls for status-catalog versus citation, compatibility, or validate-json, leaving the agent to guess.
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 have clear distinct purposes, but http-401 and status-catalog overlap on HTTP status information, and citation vs normalize-url both handle URL components. compatibility is also vague enough that an agent may struggle to know when to choose it.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the set mixes verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and utc-time. The pattern is readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but a few seem like one-off conveniences rather than part of a cohesive set, such as http-401 and compatibility. The count is not problematic, though slightly padded.
The implied domain is privacy-preserving HTTP/URL utilities, but there are notable gaps like redirect inspection, header checks, or URL comparison. Timezone and JSON validation tools feel disconnected from the core purpose, so the overall surface is incomplete and lacks a clear workflow.