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?
The description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. While a catalog implies no modifications, this is not stated, and the mismatch of parameters further obscures behavior. No annotations are available to supplement the description.
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 extremely short and free of fluff, which is concise. However, it omits essential information about parameters and usage, so the brevity works against clarity. It is not well-structured for the agent's needs.
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 low complexity, the description should still explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, and how it differs from siblings. It lacks all of this. The parameter mismatch and missing output details make the tool unusable as described.
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 the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') are clearly copied from other tools and are nonsensical for a status-code catalog. The description fails to explain how these parameters should be used, making them misleading.
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 the tool provides a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which gives a basic purpose. However, it is vague about what operations are supported (e.g., lookup, list) and how the provided parameters relate to that purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use it.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., for status code lookup vs. URL normalization or JSON validation). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, making it impossible to differentiate from alternatives.
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 distinct function: URL analysis, JSON inspection, time/timezone, and HTTP status. Only 'compatibility' is vaguely defined and could conceptually overlap with status-catalog, but the other descriptions prevent significant misselection.
Names mix noun-only (citation, compatibility), noun-noun (json-bytes, status-catalog), and verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) styles with no clear pattern. All are readable, but the convention is not systematic or predictable.
With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range. Each tool has a specific purpose, and the set does not feel bloated, even though the overall scope spans multiple utility domains.
URL, JSON, time, and HTTP status areas each have reasonable coverage with no obvious dead ends. However, the lack of a clearly stated central domain makes completeness hard to fully evaluate, and 'compatibility' feels under-specified.