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 and no descriptive detail, the behavior is completely opaque. There is no mention of read-only status, side effects, output format, or any other runtime characteristics.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. It loses a point because this extreme brevity omits needed context rather than efficiently conveying it.
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 does not explain what the tool returns, how inputs affect behavior, or what distinguishes it from the sibling tools. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves the agent without enough information to use the tool confidently.
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?
Although each parameter has a generic description, those descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose of an HTTP status catalog. The parameters appear to belong to other tools, and no explanation connects url, host, json, or zone to the tool's function.
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 names a recognizable resource ('common HTTP status codes'), but it is a noun phrase rather than an action statement and gives no clue how the tool should be invoked. It is further undermined by input parameters that have no apparent 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 about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it compares with sibling tools such as validate-json or timezone. The description provides no situational context whatsoever.
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 are mostly distinct, but `timezone` and `tz-europe-amsterdam` overlap heavily, and `domain-shape`/`normalize-url` both inspect hostnames, creating potential ambiguity.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but they mix noun labels (`citation`, `status-catalog`, `timezone`) with verb-action names (`inspect-robots`, `normalize-url`, `validate-json`), so no consistent pattern emerges.
Eleven tools is within a typical range, but the set combines URL inspection, timezone, and JSON validation unrelated to the apparent clock/time focus, making the count feel padded.
For a clock/time server, it provides current UTC, named timezone, and Europe/Amsterdam time, but lacks conversion or formatting operations; the unrelated URL/JSON tools do not fill that gap.