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, and the description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The term 'catalog' implies read-only, but this is not confirmed. The output format is also not described.
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 very short (six words) and contains no wasted words, but it lacks essential structure such as a clear verb or usage example. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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 is incomplete from a contextual standpoint because the parameters are mismatched with the stated purpose. An agent cannot determine what to pass or what to expect, making the tool effectively unusable without additional information.
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?
The parameters (url, host, json, zone) have generic schema descriptions that appear unrelated to the tool's purpose. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' has no obvious connection to a catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving the agent without any clue how to invoke the tool.
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' clearly states the resource, but does not specify the verb or how the tool behaves (e.g., list, search, retrieve). It also does not differentiate it from sibling tools that might also relate to HTTP or web context.
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 versus alternatives. The description provides no context such as 'Use when you need to look up a status code' or 'For validation, use validate-json instead.'
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 serve clearly distinct purposes (URL, time, JSON, robots, etc.), but 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with other classifications. Overall, the functions are separable.
Naming conventions are inconsistent, mixing hyphenated phrases (domain-shape, normalize-url) with plain words (citation, timezone), and using both nouns and verbs. This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls comfortably within the typical well-scoped range and does not feel excessive or thin.
The set covers a variety of utilities (URL, HTTP, time, JSON, robots) but lacks a clear cohesive domain, leaving gaps for common web-dev helpers like encoding or hashing. It feels like a random collection rather than a complete toolkit.