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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'short catalog', implying a read-only informational tool, but does not disclose whether it performs any side effects, requires authentication, or how the parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or front-loading of critical information, and the brevity leaves out essential details about usage and parameters. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with four optional 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?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what output the agent should expect, or any preconditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.
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?
The schema descriptions fully cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain how these parameters relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes, so the description adds no additional semantic value.
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 a clear purpose: a catalog of common HTTP status codes. However, it does not explain how the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this catalog, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual function. It is distinct from siblings like normalize-url and validate-json, but the mismatch between the description and parameters creates ambiguity.
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 the siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
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.
Some tools have overlapping concerns: citation and normalize-url both parse URLs and return host/scheme, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time. compatibility is also vague, making its relationship to the other tools unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphen separators and mostly use noun phrases, with a few verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, though the set covers a broad mix of URL, HTTP, time, and JSON utilities rather than a single focused domain.
The set covers common inspection tasks (URLs, robots.txt, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validity), but it lacks deeper operations like URL content retrieval, ISO duration conversion/parsing beyond shape, or more comprehensive HTTP status/request details.