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 behavioral details are disclosed. The description does not mention side effects, output format, required permissions, or error behavior. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) suggest unrelated functionality, adding confusion rather than transparency.
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, but brevity without substance is not effective. The single sentence lacks structure and fails to convey the tool's function, parameters, or usage. It is concise in word count but not in communicative efficiency.
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 far too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the purpose, input requirements, return value, or relation to sibling tools. An agent given only this description would be unable to use the tool correctly, especially given the mismatched parameter names.
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 description, they are entirely disconnected from the tool's purported purpose. Parameters like 'json' (validate) and 'zone' (IANA timezone) imply completely different operations, and there is no explanation of how they relate to HTTP status codes. The schema coverage is 100% but the semantics are 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is a noun phrase that doesn't specify an action, so it's unclear whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or validates something. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url, which could also relate to HTTP or JSON concepts.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, examples, or conditions are provided. The generic parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the agent without any basis for invocation.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: `timezone` and `tz-europe-london` both report current time, and `citation`, `normalize-url`, and `domain-shape` all inspect URL components. The mix of URL, HTTP, JSON, and clock tools makes it unclear which tool should be used for a given request.
Tool names mix noun phrases (`citation`, `status-catalog`), hyphenated action verbs (`normalize-url`, `validate-json`), and a specific timezone identifier (`tz-europe-london`). There is no consistent verb-noun or domain-based naming pattern across the set.
The server name suggests a clock/timezone tool, but 11 tools include many unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is far more than needed for the apparent core purpose, and the extra tools add noise rather than value.
For the clock/timezone aspect, the set provides UTC time, named timezone lookup, and a list of IANA zones, which covers basic needs. However, the inclusion of unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON tools makes the completeness of the overall server muddled, and there is no timezone conversion or formatting utility.