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 present, and the description gives no indication of side effects, safety, or how the parameters affect behavior. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
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 brief, but it fails to structure any useful information about the tool's functionality. Conciseness without clarity is not effective.
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 description lacks essential context about what the tool does, how it works, or any relationship to the parameters. It is incomplete and cannot be used effectively.
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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') do not align with the stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The parameters appear copied from a different context and add no meaningful semantics for this 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 states the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' but the parameters (URL, host, JSON, zone) are unrelated to HTTP status codes. This mismatch makes the purpose misleading and unclear.
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 or how it relates to the sibling tools. The description only states what it is, not when to invoke it.
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 citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs with overlapping fields, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones are related. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is minimal.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens, following a consistent pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, utc-time). No mixed conventions or irregular verbs.
With 11 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool appears to serve a distinct utility, and the number is reasonable for a general-purpose toolkit.
The tools form a disjointed collection of unrelated utilities (URLs, time, HTTP, JSON, robots, language tag) with no coherent domain. There is no obvious lifecycle or CRUD pattern, and the set lacks depth in any single area, making it incomplete for any defined purpose.