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 must fully disclose behavior, but it only offers a noun phrase. It omits whether the tool performs reads, network calls, lookups, or validation, and completely fails to explain the relevance of parameters like url, json, zone, and host to a catalog of HTTP status codes.
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 in length but under-specified to the point of uselessness. The single sentence provides no operational content, so it cannot be considered efficient; it is closer to a placeholder than a helpful definition.
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 has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description gives no clue about return values, parameter usage, or behavior. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly it would need to guess the purpose and input semantics from the name alone, which is completely inadequate.
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. The schema provides per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no meaning linking these parameters to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the tool's description and its parameters is a gap, but the schema itself is sufficiently explicit.
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' largely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and lacks a verb or action. It does not specify whether the tool lists, looks up, explains, or transforms status codes, leaving the operation ambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the ten siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contexts, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others like citation or mime-json.
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 target distinct concerns such as URL normalization, robots parsing, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. A few URL/HTTP utilities overlap in input type, but descriptions clarify differences: citation adds HTTP status, normalize-url drops query/fragment, and domain-shape focuses on hostname labels.
Names consistently use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix noun-style names like status-catalog and timezone with verb-style names like inspect-robots and validate-json. There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a mixed utility server covering URLs, HTTP, JSON, and time. A few entries like mime-json and compatibility feel marginal, but the overall count is not bloated.
The surface covers URL inspection, robots, HTTP status codes, JSON validation, and timezone utilities without obvious dead ends. Some related web utilities are absent, but the privacy-focused descriptions suggest those are intentionally excluded.