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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only reference ('catalog'), but it does not state how the provided parameters are used, whether any are needed, or what the output looks like.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The single sentence conveys minimal information and omits necessary context about parameters and behavior.
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?
Despite having four parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a one-line subject. It does not explain when to call the tool, what inputs are meaningful, or what the response contains, leaving the tool poorly specified.
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 parameters are individually documented. However, the description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes, which is a significant gap given their apparent irrelevance to the stated 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 names a clear subject, 'common HTTP status codes,' but lacks a verb and fails to connect to the input schema, which contains URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters. This creates ambiguity about what the tool actually returns or does, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like 'citation' or 'domain-shape.'
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says it is a catalog but does not explain the context, prerequisites, or when to prefer it over other tools, leaving an agent to guess.
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 in input or output: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. The descriptions clarify the intended focus somewhat, but an agent could still misselect between these pairs.
Tool names mix standalone nouns like citation and timezone with verb-noun compounds like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and hyphenation is inconsistent. Most names are still readable and weakly predictable, but there is no strong naming convention.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's apparent 'Robots Inspect' focus is supported by only inspect-robots. The rest are broad URL, time, and JSON utilities, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a server named Robots Inspect, robots.txt coverage stops at group counts and offers no way to retrieve actual rules, test URLs against directives, or compare agent policies. The unrelated utilities do not fill this gap, so core inspection workflows would dead-end.