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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool is a 'short catalog' and gives no behavioral details: no side effects, no data handling, no return format. It does not even confirm whether the tool performs any action beyond displaying static codes. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.
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, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. One sentence with minimal content earns a middle score; it is not verbose, but it omits necessary context.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole guide, yet it provides almost no actionable information. The four parameters are not explained in relation to the tool's purpose, there is no hint of how status codes are used, and the agent is left with a catalog name and a vague phrase. This is highly inadequate even for a simple reference tool.
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%, meaning each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the tool description itself adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description does not explain how they relate to the catalog. A baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter details, but the mismatch between parameters and described purpose lowers the value further.
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 states it is a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes', which is vague and does not convey a specific action or resource. It resembles a reference resource rather than a tool with a clear verb+resource objective. The title 'status-catalog' is essentially restated, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools.
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. Sibling tools like 'citation', 'compatibility', 'normalize-url', and 'validate-json' suggest different functions, but the description never mentions them or conditions for selection. The tool could be a status-code lookup, but its usage context is entirely unstated.
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 have clearly different outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname shapes, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all cover time. A couple of vague names like compatibility and citation could also cause initial misselection.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which gives a visual consistency, but they mix verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and timezone. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to be considered strongly consistent.
11 tools is within a reasonable range and none feels redundant, but the collection spans several unrelated concerns such as URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, and robots.txt. It is slightly broad, though not bloated.
The set covers common lookups like URL normalization, status codes, time, and JSON validation, but there is no coherent domain that ties these together. Obvious adjacent operations such as redirect checking, response header inspection, or rate-limit-specific details are missing, leaving an agent with possible dead ends.