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 only states that something is a 'catalog' without revealing whether the tool performs reads, transformations, validations, or side effects. No behavior is disclosed regarding how the parameters are consumed, what happens to the input, or what the tool returns.
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 reads quickly, but its brevity comes from being under-specified rather than efficient. It is essentially a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name and does not earn its place with any actionable content. The sentence is structured fine, but the content value is minimal.
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 output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how to invoke the catalog, what input is expected, what output to anticipate, or how the parameters are used. An agent has no information to invoke the tool correctly with meaningful inputs.
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 itself documents each parameter (url, host, json, zone). Per the rubric, this earns a baseline of 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how these parameters relate to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the semantic mapping unclear.
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 'status-catalog' and lacks a specific verb or action. It does not clarify whether the tool looks up, validates, or generates status codes, nor how it relates to its four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone). It is a vague noun phrase rather than an actionable tool definition.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it serves, or how it differs from sibling tools like citation, compatibility, or timezone. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. An agent is left entirely to guess the intended 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.
The time tools overlap heavily: timezone can replicate utc-time and tz-america-los-angeles, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one. The URL/HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but compatibility is vague and domain-shape/normalize-url both operate on hostname structure.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated style, which is clean and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some names are verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) while others are bare nouns (citation, timezone, utc-time), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in absolute terms, but the set is divided between time-related tools and unrelated URL/HTTP inspection utilities. Under the 'clock' identity, the count feels inflated and the purpose is diluted.
For a clock service, the core time queries are covered, but there is no timezone conversion or exhaustive zone listing. If viewed as a network-inspection suite, some exclusions are intentional, yet compatibility is underspecified and the overall domain remains unclear.