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. The word 'catalog' weakly implies a read-only reference, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, mutability, output behavior, or what happens when parameters are supplied. This is too thin 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 text is short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single phrase with no action verb or operational detail does not earn its place as a useful tool description.
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?
The tool has four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) that appear unrelated to HTTP status codes, yet the description gives no hint of how they influence the catalog or result. With no output schema and no annotation context, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.
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%, so the parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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'—that restates the name and names the subject matter but states no action or operation. It fails to clarify what an agent should actually do with the catalog or how it differs from sibling tools like citation, compatibility, or validate.
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 about when to use this tool versus its siblings. Despite a rich list of sibling tools, the description mentions no alternatives, no conditional scenarios, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
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 cluster around related concerns: citation and normalize-url both work with URLs, and timezone/utc-time/iso-ordinal all deal with time. Descriptions are usually enough to tell them apart, but 'compatibility' is vague and could easily be confused with status-catalog or citation.
Names mix noun phrases like timezone and status-catalog with verb-object names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. The hyphenated lowercase style is consistent, but there is no predictable verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is not an unreasonable number for a general utility server, but the set feels like a kitchen-sink collection rather than a focused toolkit. Given the server name 'ISO ordinal day', most of the tools are outside the apparent purpose.
There is no single coherent domain to assess, and each area is only thinly covered: URL tools lack encoding/decoding, time tools lack conversions between formats, and JSON support stops at validation. This makes the surface feel incomplete for almost any intended workflow.