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 carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It mentions nothing about read-only behavior, data mutation, external calls, or side effects. The word 'catalog' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, leaving room for uncertainty.
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, but its brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail. It omits the action, input/output expectations, and relationship to parameters. A concise description should pack essential information into few words; this one merely states a vague noun phrase and fails to communicate the tool's function.
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 simple in concept, but the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the tool behaves, what inputs are expected, what output is produced, or how it differs from siblings. Combined with the parameter mismatch, the description is actively confusing rather than complete.
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) are completely mismatched with the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') appear copied from other tools and do not relate to status codes. The description provides no explanation for how these parameters are used, making them misleading.
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 ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') without a clear verb or action. It indicates what the resource is but not what the tool does—e.g., whether it lists codes, looks up a code, or returns metadata. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to invoke or use it.
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 versus alternatives. The sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url) have self-explanatory purposes, but this description offers no situational context or comparison to help the agent choose correctly.
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 (URL inspection, time, status codes, JSON validation), but citation and normalize-url both deal with URL parts and could cause confusion. compatibility is also somewhat vague, though it appears to classify requests differently.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens (e.g., domain-shape, utc-time, validate-json), forming a consistent and predictable pattern across the entire set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server lacks a unified focus—it's a grab bag of utilities. While not excessive, the count feels high for the apparent scope, which is unclear and fragmented.
There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against. The server is labeled 'Language es' but only one tool (lang-es) relates to language, leaving many potential gaps. For a general utility server, it's missing obvious pairs like URL fetching or timezone listing beyond common names.