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 does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, data mutation, or any other behavioral traits. The tool's impact is completely unspecified.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices essential information. It is concise but not meaningfully informative about the tool's operation or parameters.
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 and a highly ambiguous description, the tool lacks sufficient context for correct use. The parameter meanings are unclear, and no expected output or behavior is described.
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 the schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), those descriptions appear generic and unrelated to HTTP status codes. The descriptions reference normalizing URLs, validating JSON, and timezone names without explaining how any of these parameters relate to the tool's purpose.
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') with no verb or clear operation. It does not state what the tool does, returns, or how it behaves, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
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 versus alternatives such as http-403 or validate-json. No conditions, prerequisites, or use cases are mentioned.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but http-403 and status-catalog overlap for status-code lookups, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones form a related cluster. citation and normalize-url both expose host/origin info, so an agent could hesitate between them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-style names (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), and http-403 is a code rather than an action. The pattern is readable but not consistent.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is unfocused: URL utilities, HTTP status, time, and JSON validation are bundled together. For a server named 'HTTP 403 forbidden', it feels padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a general stateless utility server, common operations exist, but there are gaps: no timezone conversion, no URL query parsing, and status-code coverage is shallow. The domain is broad enough that completeness is hard to pin down.