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 provided and the description discloses no behavioral details—whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, has side effects, or requires specific input. The description 'short catalog' gives no operational information whatsoever.
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 concise sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of critical information—no action, no query mechanism, no return format—making it under-specified despite being short.
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?
There is no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns or how it should be invoked. Given the mismatched parameters and complete lack of operational detail, an agent has insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, but the descriptions (URL to normalize, public hostname, JSON to validate, timezone name) are irrelevant to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The parameter meanings are coherent individually yet misleading in context, failing to explain how they serve the tool.
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 names the resource but not a clear action. The purpose is undermined by the four parameters (url, host, json, zone), none of which relate to HTTP status codes, leaving an agent uncertain what the tool actually does.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.) correspond to the parameters, but no distinction or selection criteria is provided, so an agent cannot tell when status-catalog is the right choice.
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 heavily: timezone, tz-pacific-auckland, and utc-time all return current time, and URL/HTTP tools like citation, compatibility, normalize-url, and domain-shape have unclear boundaries. Agents would likely struggle to pick the right one.
Names are mostly lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-object forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-like labels (citation, compatibility, timezone) and an inconsistent specific alias (tz-pacific-auckland vs timezone).
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named as a Pacific/Auckland clock, at least seven tools are unrelated URL/HTTP utilities and several time tools are redundant, making the set feel padded and poorly scoped.
The time-related subset covers current time, UTC, and IANA zone names, so it is largely complete for a simple clock. However, the mixed URL/HTTP and validation tools have no clear unified domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete and hard to reason about.