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, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or dependencies. The description gives no such information, making the tool's operational impact 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 brief and to the point in terms of length, but it sacrifices clarity and usefulness. It omits essential information that could be conveyed concisely, such as the operation performed or parameter relevance, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.
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?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is still incomplete because it fails to explain the tool's function, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling tools. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters further compounds the incompleteness, leaving the agent without adequate context.
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 description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes. The schema-level descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest a purpose unrelated to the stated catalog, creating a semantic mismatch that leaves parameter roles completely unexplained.
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,' which conveys a subject matter but lacks an explicit action verb or explanation of what the tool does with the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). It does not clarify whether it returns a list, fetches a status, or validates something, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, input requirements, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to guess.
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.
Several URL-centered tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) and time tools (timezone, utc-time) overlap in input type and could be confused, though their output purposes are mostly distinct. The vague 'compatibility' tool lacks a clear boundary, and 'lang-hi' seems unrelated to the rest.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual pattern, but the grammatical style is mixed: some are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), some nouns (citation, timezone), and some are opaque (compatibility, lang-hi). It is readable but not a clean verb_noun convention.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a utility server and not bloated. However, a few tools feel like one-offs or constants (lang-hi, iana-zones), so the set does not feel perfectly curated.
The tool surface is a grab bag of URL, HTTP status, robots, time, JSON, and language utilities, so there is no coherent domain to complete. For a web/URL toolkit, obvious operations like header inspection, content fetch, or DNS/WHOIS are missing; for a language server, only a tag constant is present.