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 bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only describes the catalog as 'short' and does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it uses any of the inputs, what side effects exist, or what the output looks like. This is far too little behavioral disclosure.
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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. One short noun phrase is not enough for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, and the sentence does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's actual 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?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters that appear to belong to other tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, citation), the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to pass, what the tool returns, or why this tool exists alongside the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has its own text, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning to the parameters and fails to connect url, host, json, or zone to HTTP status codes, leaving the parameter semantics confusing despite the schema coverage.
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 a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name rather than stating an operation or behavior. It does not explain what the tool does with an input or what a caller receives, and it is disconnected from the four unrelated input parameters.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus any sibling. The sibling names (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, citation, etc.) suggest related web utilities, but the description never tells an agent when status-catalog is the right choice or when it is not.
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 have overlapping concerns: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all relate to time. The purpose of compatibility is vague and could be confused with the URL inspection tools. Only a few tools like slug-ok and validate-json are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), while others are bare nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone). There is no unified verb_noun convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the tool set is unfocused for a server named 'Slug character check.' Most tools address unrelated concerns such as time, URLs, HTTP status, and JSON, making the collection feel padded rather than purpose-built.
The server lacks a coherent domain: slug checking has only one thin tool, URL utilities have no encoding/decoding or query-param handling, and time utilities lack conversions or formatting options. For any single stated purpose, the surface has significant gaps and no end-to-end workflow.