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 of behavioral disclosure. The description is too terse to convey what the catalog actually does with its inputs (e.g., whether url is used to look up a status, whether json is validated against a status code, or whether zone is irrelevant). It does not disclose the format of the output, the scope of 'common' codes, or any side effects (though a catalog is likely read-only).
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 and front-loaded with the core subject. But it is too terse to provide needed behavioral detail, so the conciseness borders on under-specification.
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?
For a tool that is named a 'catalog' but has 4 loosely-related parameters (url, host, json, zone) and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves too many unknowns. It neither explains how the parameters interact with the catalog nor what the agent should expect in return.
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 schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and does not explain how the parameter relates to the status-code catalog. The connection between url/host/json/zone and 'common HTTP status codes' is completely opaque, leaving the agent without enough meaning to decide what to pass.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' states a clear subject (HTTP status codes) and genre (catalog), so an agent can tell it is a lookup/reference tool rather than, say, a client that makes requests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, etc.), and the name 'status-catalog' is close to the description, leaving some ambiguity about whether it returns codes, descriptions, or both.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or alternatives. The description only says what the catalog contains, not when to consult it, what it can be used for, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
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 operate on URLs and overlap in scope: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all accept URL-related input and return overlapping metadata. The compatibility tool is too vague to distinguish from the others, and timezone/utc-time are similarly close.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style, which is readable and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun-based (citation, timezone, status-catalog).
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. Still, the server feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a focused toolkit, so the count is reasonable but not ideal.
The tool surface covers several URL, HTTP, time, and validation basics, but there is no clear overall domain tying them together. Notable gaps exist depending on intent: no DNS, header inspection, or meaningful ISBN validation beyond digit shape; the server name suggests a much narrower focus than what is provided.