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?
As a catalog, it's implied to be read-only, but the description doesn't explicitly state behavior, output format, or side effects. No annotations are present to supplement this, leaving the agent to infer safety.
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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and well-structured, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a middle score for being short without being clear.
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 description is grossly incomplete given the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain what the catalog contains, how to query it, what the output looks like, or how the supplied parameters are used. An agent would have no idea how to invoke this correctly.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to the described purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The schema descriptions only explain the parameters' individual meanings, not how they relate to the tool, and the mismatch renders the schema misleading.
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 states a specific resource (common HTTP status codes) but lacks a clear verb or usage context. It's ambiguous whether this is a lookup, a reference list, or something else, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings beyond the subject matter.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single phrase with no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationship to sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but timezone, tz-america-denver, and utc-time overlap in providing time information, which could cause confusion. The URL-related tools (citation, domain-shape, normalize-url) are clearly differentiated.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, which is consistent. However, the mix of noun-style (citation, timezone) and verb-noun style (normalize-url, validate-json) names is slightly inconsistent but still readable and predictable.
The 11 tools cover a focused set of utilities (URL, time, HTTP status, JSON validation) without being excessive. The count is well-suited for the server's apparent purpose.
The tool set covers common URL, time, and validation needs. Minor gaps like a dedicated tool to get current date or to validate URLs exist, but the existing tools handle these indirectly and the surface feels reasonably complete.