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 behavioral burden. It only says 'short catalog,' which hints at limited data but does not disclose whether the tool returns a static table, checks a status, or accepts any of the four optional parameters. The behavior remains 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 text is genuinely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Short catalog' is vague and the single sentence does not provide enough substance to be considered a well-structured tool description.
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 has 4 optional, unrelated parameters and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, when they are relevant, or what the tool will return, so an agent cannot reliably decide to call it or set parameters correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter context at all, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are not obviously related to HTTP status codes, creating an unresolved gap between the described purpose and the actual inputs.
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's resource ('common HTTP status codes') and its scope ('short catalog'), but uses no active verb. It is unclear whether the tool lists, looks up, or explains codes, which makes it hard to distinguish from an informational endpoint or a lookup utility.
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 given for when to use this tool versus any sibling. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical invocation scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the bare 'status catalog' phrase.
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, but timezone/utc-time both return current time and citation/normalize-url both inspect URL components. Compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog, though descriptions provide some help.
All tool names use lowercase-hyphenated style, but they mix noun labels (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-object actions (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). This mixed semantic pattern makes naming less predictable despite the consistent formatting.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but a server titled 'Leap year check' carries only one leap-year tool among unrelated URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is a major scope mismatch for the stated purpose.
The set lacks a coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess: for a leap-year server there is only the bare check, and as a general utility server there are obvious omissions like date arithmetic or more detailed HTTP capabilities. Agents would hit dead ends beyond the narrow included functions.