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?
No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavior beyond the noun-phrase catalog statement. There is no mention of read-only nature, output format, side effects, or how inputs affect behavior.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified to the point of being a title fragment rather than a functional 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description that lacks an operation, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain output, selection of parameters, or how this tool differs from siblings.
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 input schema descriptions cover all four parameters with definitions for URL, host, JSON, and zone, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no context about how these parameters relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving the mapping 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 essentially a restatement of the tool name 'status-catalog' with the words 'common HTTP' added. It lacks a verb or explicit operation, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or checks something.
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 statement about when to use this tool or which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent has no guidance on choosing status-catalog over citation, compatibility, or domain-shape.
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.
Several tools overlap: citation and normalize-url both return URL origin/host information, while timezone and utc-time both provide current time. The descriptions help separate most tools, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with classification or request-checking tools.
Names use lowercase hyphenation and are generally readable, but they mix verb-led forms like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json with noun-led forms like domain-shape, status-catalog, and utc-time. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but for a server named 'Nano ID shape check' the scope feels diffuse, with URL, time, JSON, and HTTP status utilities included. Several tools do not clearly earn their place under that stated purpose.
The server claims a narrow Nano ID focus, yet only one tool directly supports it, while URL, JSON, time, and robots checks are shallow one-offs. There are no tools for generating or custom-validating Nano IDs, and URL handling stops at normalization without redirects or deeper request inspection.