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, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether the optional parameters are used or ignored, or any side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity sacrifices substantive guidance.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters that seem unrelated to a status-code catalog. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what the tool returns, or how the input schema connects to the stated purpose. This is a significant contextual gap.
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 baseline is 3. Each parameter has its own description, but the tool description adds no meaning about which parameters are relevant to the status-code catalog or how they affect the response. The schema remains the only source of parameter understanding.
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 near restatement of the tool name: status-catalog is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It lacks a clear verb and does not explain how the stated purpose relates to the input parameters (url, host, json, zone), making it ambiguous for an agent to understand what this tool does beyond its title.
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 provided on when to use this tool instead of its siblings such as validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone. There are no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions mentioned; the intended use case is only weakly implied by 'HTTP status codes.'
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 overlap in the URL/host/status space: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all return host-like information, and compatibility is vague. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could still misselect when looking for a specific URL metric.
Names mix single-word nouns like citation and timezone, noun phrases like domain-shape and status-catalog, and verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. All use kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server. Most tools have narrow, distinct purposes, though a few time-related and URL-related tools feel somewhat redundant.
The set covers URL normalization, JSON/JWT inspection, robots, HTTP status, and time utilities, but the lack of a single cohesive domain leaves noticeable gaps. For example, there is no generic URL validation, no HTTP header inspection, and the compatibility tool is underspecified.