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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'catalog,' implying a read-only reference without stating what the tool does with the url, host, json, or zone inputs, what it returns, or any side effects. The schema's 'discarded after the check' note hints at validation behavior that the description does not acknowledge.
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 one short, filler-free phrase that is easy to scan. It lacks a structured breakdown of behavior, but economy of language earns a decent score; the brevity is the only structural virtue.
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?
This tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate; it does not. There is no explanation of how the parameters relate to the catalog, what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or when to use it.
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 each parameter is individually documented (URL to normalize or cite, hostname, JSON text to validate, IANA timezone). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric, the schema's full coverage sets the baseline at 3.
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 that mostly restates the tool name ('status-catalog' → 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') and lacks a verb or any statement of what action the tool performs. The input schema introduces url, host, json, and zone parameters that have no obvious connection to HTTP status codes, so the description leaves the tool's actual function ambiguous.
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 or when to prefer a sibling like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description merely labels the tool's content; it does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but URL-related tools like citation and normalize-url and time tools like timezone and utc-time occupy adjacent territory. Descriptions are clear enough that an agent can usually select correctly.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which provides a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone), verb-style names (normalize-url, validate-json), and abbreviation-style names (km-to-mi), so there is no uniform verb_noun convention.
A server named 'Kilometers to miles' having 11 tools is excessive, since only km-to-mi relates to the stated purpose. The count could work for a general utility server, but it does not fit the apparent conversion-focused scope.
As a unit conversion service, the server is severely incomplete: it only supports kilometers-to-miles and lacks the reverse conversion or other conversions. As a utility collection, the tools are unrelated and form no coherent domain whose completeness can be judged.