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 provides no information about side effects, permissions, read-only behavior, or data sensitivity. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose any behavioral characteristics.
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 (one short sentence), which is concise in length, but it omits essential action and context. It is not well-structured for an agent to understand what to do with it, so conciseness does not compensate for the lack of 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?
The tool description and schema are internally inconsistent. The description talks about HTTP status codes while the schema expects URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters. This severe mismatch renders the context incomplete and confusing, providing no coherent picture of the tool's function.
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 schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to the description's subject of HTTP status codes. The parameter descriptions seem to belong to a different tool. This mismatch makes the parameter semantics almost meaningless for the intended purpose.
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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') without an action verb. It indicates the subject matter (HTTP status codes) but not what the tool does (e.g., returns, lists, or looks up codes). The purpose is therefore vague and not actionable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which it should be chosen over other tools. No alternative tools are referenced.
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 name and description clearly targets a distinct function (URL parsing, timezone lookup, JSON validation, etc.), with no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated format (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'status-catalog'), following a uniform naming convention.
11 tools is a reasonable number for a general utility set, though some tools (like 'citation' and 'compatibility') seem abstract and may overlap conceptually with others.
The server name 'Miles to kilometers' implies a unit conversion focus, but none of the tools perform any unit conversion. The toolset is a hodgepodge of unrelated utilities, making it incomplete for its stated purpose.