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, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'catalog' implies a read-only reference, but the description does not state whether parameters are used to filter, whether network calls occur, what output is returned, or whether the tool has any side effects. The input schema hints at validating and discarding data, but the description itself is silent on 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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than effective concision because it omits the relationship between the stated purpose and the four-parameter schema. It is concise but not complete enough to be genuinely useful.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a five-word description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the return format, how to select among parameters, what the catalog contains, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. An agent has almost no basis for a correct invocation.
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 each parameter already has a clear individual definition. However, the tool description adds no parameter guidance and, more importantly, its HTTP-status-code framing does not clarify why URL normalization, JSON validation, or timezone names are accepted inputs. The schema is helpful in isolation, but the description fails to connect these parameters to the tool's 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds only 'common HTTP'. It lacks a clear verb or action and does not explain why the input schema contains url, host, json, and zone parameters, which are unrelated to a simple status-code catalog. An agent cannot determine the actual function or scope of the tool from this text.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools such as validate-json, normalize-url, or iana-zones. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, so an agent must guess the appropriate invocation context.
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 URL-focused tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) overlap in what they inspect, though their descriptions do specify different outputs. compatibility and sha256-ok are vague, but most other tools have clearly separate jobs.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix verb-object names (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, timezone, status-catalog, iana-zones). This is readable but gives agents no reliable pattern for predicting tool names.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable size for a general-purpose privacy-safe utility server, and no tool is an exact duplicate. The set could be tightened around a single domain, but the count itself is not excessive.
The server's domain is too broad and unfocused to define a complete workflow: URL inspection lacks redirect/header coverage, timezone handling lacks conversions, and JSON/hash tools are single-purpose checks. As a result, agents will likely need tools outside this server for related operations.