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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or what happens with the provided parameters. The description is too minimal to offer any transparency about the tool's behavior.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or detail. It does not provide headings, lists, or any organized information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The brevity works against clarity.
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 the absence of an output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the tool is far from complete. An agent has no information about expected inputs, outputs, or behavior. The description fails to place the tool in any useful context, especially compared to the varied sibling tools.
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?
All four parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unexplained. The description does not reference them or indicate how they relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes. Without any additional context, these parameters are meaningless to an agent trying to invoke the tool.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which gives a vague idea of the tool's purpose, but it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a list, looks up a code). The presence of unrelated parameters like url, host, json, and zone further muddies the intended functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where the tool would be appropriate. The sibling tools cover diverse functionality, but no comparison or selection criteria are given.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: URL parsing, HTTP status codes, timezone handling, JSON validation, and robots.txt fetching. Even overlapping areas like URL tools focus on different aspects (origin/path vs. host/scheme vs. domain labels).
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No camelCase, underscores, or mixed styles, making the naming pattern predictable and uniform.
With 11 tools, the set sits within the typical 3-15 range. The domain is a mix of unrelated utilities (URL, time, JSON, HTTP), which feels slightly unfocused but not excessive.
The tools cover common operations for their respective areas: URL parsing, time/UTC, JSON validation, and HTTP status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no URL encoding/decoding or generic HTTP request tool), but the current set is reasonably comprehensive for its stated purposes.