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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no operation, side effects, return behavior, or failure modes. The mismatch between the description's subject matter and the actual parameters leaves the agent unable to predict what invoking this tool does.
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 a single short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. No sentence earns its place because the only sentence fails to convey the tool's behavior or relationship to its inputs.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no coherent action defined, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs to supply, what the tool will do with them, or what response to expect.
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%, which normally sets a baseline of 3. However, the description offers no mapping between its stated purpose (HTTP status codes) and the four parameters (url, host, json, zone), and in fact actively disorients the agent about why these parameters exist.
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 restates the tool name ('catalog' of 'status codes') with only a slight expansion to 'common HTTP status codes.' It does not state a concrete action an agent can invoke, and it is actively misleading because the input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no evident connection to HTTP status codes.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.
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.
Timezone, tz-asia-tokyo, and utc-time all return current time with overlapping purposes, and compatibility is vague about what it classifies. The mix of time and URL tools under a clock server name further confuses selection.
Tool names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern mixes nouns (citation, timezone), verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url), and a special abbreviation (tz-asia-tokyo). The style is readable but not uniformly verb_noun.
11 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the server's apparent focus is unclear — half are time-related and half are URL/HTTP utilities. The count is not excessive, though the breadth feels unaligned with the server name.
The time domain covers current time, UTC, and timezone names, but lacks timezone conversion or date formatting. The URL utilities are a partial set with no page fetch, headers, or query handling, leaving notable gaps for a general web tool surface.