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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It provides no information about side effects, return format, pagination, or whether the tool is read-only. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing.
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 concise (one sentence) but overly vague. It is structured as a simple noun phrase without an actionable verb, and the brevity sacrifices necessary clarity about 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?
For a simple catalog tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the output looks like, whether it is a list, a map, or something else, and there is no output schema. The tool context is not adequately covered.
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 four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions that reference other tools' concerns (URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone). They are completely unrelated to a catalog of HTTP status codes, making the parameter semantics confusing and unhelpful.
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' clearly identifies the resource but lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., 'returns', 'lists', 'looks up'). It is distinct from sibling tools but does not explicitly state what the tool does with the catalog.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague and 'citation' vs 'normalize-url' both deal with URLs, though with different purposes. Overall, descriptions help clarify intent.
Names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json) with a few single-word exceptions like 'citation' and 'timezone'. The style is predictable and readable.
11 tools is well within the typical range for a general-purpose utility server, covering URL, time, HTTP status, JSON, and language helpers without being excessive.
The tool set covers a broad range of common web and time utilities. Minor gaps like DNS lookup or IP info exist, but for the apparent scope, the coverage is solid.