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 bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool is a catalog, but does not explain how the parameters affect the output, whether the tool performs any side effects, or what the response format looks like. This is insufficient transparency.
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 extremely brief and contains no redundant words, which supports conciseness. However, the structure is a single noun phrase without any verb or action orientation, making it functionally incomplete rather than appropriately structured.
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 any context about return values, error handling, or how the tool integrates with the sibling tools. Given the mismatch between the purpose and parameters, the description is far from complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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?
Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, those descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name') are unrelated to the stated purpose of HTTP status codes. The description adds no meaning linking the parameters to the tool's function, so the parameter semantics are effectively 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' states a noun phrase rather than a verb, leaving unclear what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieve, list, or explain). It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) bear no apparent relation to HTTP status codes, making the stated purpose misleading.
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 scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice, especially given the unrelated parameter set.
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.
Each tool has a unique, well-defined purpose with no overlapping functionality. For example, 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json' address distinct concerns, and time-related tools are clearly separated.
Tool names follow a mix of conventions: some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive. Each tool covers a separate utility, though a few could arguably be merged (e.g., timezone and utc-time), but the number is still within a sensible range.
The server name 'Language ja' suggests a language-related domain, yet the tools cover miscellaneous web utilities (URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON). This mismatch and lack of a cohesive domain make the surface feel incomplete for any specific purpose.