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?
The description gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral traits. With no annotations available, this lack of disclosure leaves the tool's behavior completely 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 very brief, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or elaboration. It does not even use a verb phrase, making it more of a label than a functional description. The brevity works against clarity.
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 disparate parameters and the lack of any explanation about how they relate to HTTP status codes, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reasonably infer what inputs are expected or what outputs will be produced.
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', and 'zone' are described with generic phrases (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') that do not connect to HTTP status codes. The schema provides no additional context, so the meaning and role of each parameter in this tool are entirely unclear.
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' is a noun phrase and does not state what action the tool performs. It is unclear whether it looks up, lists, or explains status codes, and the sibling tools like 'citation' and 'validate-json' do not clarify its role.
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 or how to use this tool. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any usage context.
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 overlap in purpose: 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both process URLs, while 'timezone' and 'utc-time' both return time-related data. The distinction between 'domain-shape' and 'normalize-url' is also unclear without deeper inspection.
Names mix single words (citation, compatibility, timezone) and hyphenated compounds (domain-shape, normalize-url, validate-json). Some names are vague and not action-oriented (e.g., 'citation', 'compatibility'), and 'lang-ru' is narrowly scoped without a pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls within the acceptable 3-15 range and does not feel excessive. The number is reasonable for a utilities server, though a couple of tools could be merged without loss of clarity.
The set covers several web-related utilities (URLs, status codes, time, JSON, robots), but the domain is not clearly defined and lacks common counterparts (e.g., encoding/decoding, hashing). The inclusion of a single language tag tool ('lang-ru') suggests a narrow or arbitrary scope.