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 burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common.' It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what input it acts on, what output it produces, or what side effects, if any, may occur.
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 single sentence is efficient and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. Important operational context is missing, so the brevity comes at the cost 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 has four optional parameters that appear unrelated to the stated purpose, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-line noun phrase is far too incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke this tool or interpret its result.
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 schema already documents url, host, json, and zone individually. The description adds no parameter-related meaning and never explains how a status-code catalog relates to URL normalization, JSON validation, or timezone parameters.
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 essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names a resource but uses no verb to state what the tool does, such as retrieving, looking up, or returning a catalog, and it offers minimal differentiation from sibling tools beyond the domain.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like citation, compatibility, or validate-json. There are no conditions, examples, or exclusions to help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.
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 occupy overlapping territory: rfc3339-now and utc-time both return current UTC time, while citation and normalize-url both surface host/scheme metadata for URLs. The compatibility tool is also vague and could be confused with citation's request classification role.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is inconsistent: citation, timezone, and status-catalog are noun-style, while normalize-url, inspect-robots, and validate-json are verb-style. There is no consistent verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a toolkit that spans time, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. However, the near-duplicate time and URL utilities could likely be consolidated without losing capability.
The toolset covers its apparent privacy-focused metadata utilities well: current time, timezone names, URL shape, HTTP status, robots.txt, and JSON validation. Minor gaps like timezone conversion or custom timestamp formatting exist, but agents can work around them.