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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the catalog is 'short.' It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how the input parameters affect behavior, or whether there are any side effects. The word 'catalog' weakly implies a read operation, but this is not made explicit.
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 short sentence with no filler words, so it is concise. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, providing only a brief noun phrase and no structural detail that helps an agent act on it.
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, input schema, and apparent purpose are mismatched: the description promises an HTTP status code catalog while the schema offers unrelated parameters. There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how the four parameters relate to the tool's function, leaving an agent unable to determine a correct invocation.
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 even though the description adds no parameter information. The descriptions in the schema are individually clear, but the description does not bridge the gap between the parameters (url, host, json, zone) and the stated purpose of providing HTTP status codes.
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 catalog of common HTTP status codes, which gives a general sense of the resource. However, it is a noun phrase with no action verb and closely paraphrases the tool name, and it does nothing to distinguish the tool from siblings like citation, compatibility, normalize, or validate.
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 the sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusionary conditions. An agent can only infer that it might be used to reference HTTP status codes, but the description provides no explicit selection criteria.
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 target clearly separate concerns, but citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs and can both return host/scheme information, which may create selection ambiguity. The time and status tools are distinct enough given their descriptions.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which is readable, but the set mixes verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation and status-catalog, plus odd constants like lang-en. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, though several are single-purpose constants such as lang-en and utc-time that add some bulk. The count is not excessive or too thin.
The domain appears to be privacy-preserving read-only helpers, and it covers basic URL, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation needs. However, there are notable gaps like timezone conversion, HTTP status details beyond a catalog, and the opaque compatibility and lang-en tools do not form a clear workflow.