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 beyond the word 'catalog'. There is no mention of whether the tool is read-only, performs any side effects, or handles inputs in a specific way. Since there are no annotations to fill this gap, the description carries the full burden and fails to inform about potential behaviors.
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 only one sentence, which is concise in word count, but it omits essential information about the tool's functionality and parameters. Front-loading is minimal—it names the resource but fails to specify the operation or usage context, making the brevity counterproductive.
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 tool lacks critical context: no explanation of how the input parameters relate to status codes, what output format is expected, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the mismatched parameters and vague purpose, an agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without additional information.
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?
While each parameter has a description, these descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') are entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of providing HTTP status codes. The schema descriptions do not clarify how url, host, json, or zone could be used in the context of a status code catalog, adding confusion rather than meaning.
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' indicates a reference list but does not specify the exact action (e.g., retrieve all, look up by code) or how the input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to that purpose. This vagueness makes it difficult to distinguish from other tools with similar catalog-like behavior.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone. There is no explanation of scenarios where status-catalog would be preferred or how it differs from others.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., timezone vs. normalize-url). The only minor overlap is between 'timezone' and 'tz-europe-madrid', but they differ in generality (any named zone vs. a fixed zone).
All tool names follow the same lowercase, hyphen-separated pattern (e.g., 'tz-europe-madrid', 'utc-time', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb usage.
11 tools is a reasonable number. The set includes several non-clock utilities (URL, JSON, robots) that broaden scope beyond the server's name, but the count itself is not excessive or too sparse.
For a clock/time server, core operations are covered: UTC time, named timezone, and a specific fixed zone. The 'iana-zones' tool aids discovery, though a full zone list or conversion functionality is missing. Extra web/JSON tools are unrelated but not a defect.