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 present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, or error behavior. The agent has no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 short and contains no fluff. Every word is necessary, and the structure is clean and direct.
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 severe mismatch between the description and parameters, and the lack of any output schema or example, the description is far from complete. The agent lacks essential context about what the tool returns, how the parameters might be used, or why they are included.
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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but the parameter names and descriptions (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The description adds no meaning to resolve this mismatch, leaving the parameters confusing and potentially 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 the tool is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which identifies the resource type but lacks a verb indicating what action the tool performs (e.g., get, list, search). The purpose is vague and does not clearly distinguish it from potential sibling tools.
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 does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or example scenarios, leaving the agent entirely without usage direction.
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.
Tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-asia-singapore' overlap in purpose, though the latter is location-specific. Similarly, 'normalize-url' and 'inspect-robots' both relate to URLs but serve different functions. Overall, most tools are distinguishable but a few could cause selection ambiguity.
Names are highly inconsistent: some are verb phrases (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'), some are nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'iana-zones'), and there's no unified pattern. Hyphenation is used but not systematically, and the mix of imperative and descriptive naming makes the set feel arbitrary.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a multi-purpose utility server. However, the set feels padded with niche tools like 'tz-asia-singapore' while lacking broader coverage, making the count slightly high for the apparent scope.
The tools cover disparate domains (URLs, timezones, JSON, HTTP status) without forming a coherent service. For a clock/timezone server, there are redundant tools but no common operations like list all timezones or convert between zones. For a URL utility, missing fetch or parse variants. The domain is unclear, leading to significant gaps.