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. It reveals nothing about side effects, return values, side effects, or how inputs like url, host, json, and zone are used. An agent cannot predict what happens when invoking this tool.
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, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. No sentence explains the tool's purpose beyond restating the name, leaving the agent with no actionable information.
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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated catalog purpose. An agent cannot determine what a correct invocation looks like or what the tool returns, making the definition inadequate for use.
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 schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds no semantic connection between these parameters and the catalog of HTTP status codes, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers all parameter meanings.
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' merely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and provides no action verb or functional outcome. It does not explain what an agent is supposed to do with this tool, nor does it differentiate it from siblings such as citation or validate-json.
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 contains no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like citation, compatibility, normalize-url, and validate-json exist, but no conditions or exclusions are given to help route the agent correctly.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all dissect URLs/hostnames, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status reporting. compatibility is too vague to disambiguate, so an agent could easily pick the wrong URL-analysis tool.
All names are lowercase and hyphen-separated, which is readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun while citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog are nouns. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'JSON Check' only validate-json is on-topic. The remaining nine are unrelated URL, HTTP, and time utilities, making the toolset feel like a grab bag rather than a scoped set.
As a JSON-checking server it is severely incomplete: only a boolean validity check is offered, with no schema validation, formatting, or JSON-path operations. As a general URL/HTTP utility it also lacks HTTP body access, redirect handling, and timezone conversion, so common workflows will hit dead ends.