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, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It only says the tool is a 'short catalog', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs any lookup, makes network requests, or returns a static list. The unrelated-looking parameters (url, host, json, zone) are not reconciled with the stated purpose.
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 with no filler words or irrelevant detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is perhaps too terse to fully support the tool's behavioral and contextual needs.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters whose relationship to a status-code catalog is unexplained, the one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what output to expect, why the parameters exist, or how they should be used when calling this tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its four parameters, so the schema already explains what each parameter is. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a resource: a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns', 'lists', or 'looks up', so it is not fully clear what behavior the agent should expect when calling the tool. It does distinguish the subject from the sibling tools, but not through any contrast.
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 gives no guidance on when to use status-catalog versus the sibling tools. There are no scenarios, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
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 around URL and request inspection: citation and normalize-url both return host/scheme, and status-catalog overlaps with citation's HTTP status output. The vague compatibility tool compounds the problem, though the time and format-validation tools are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the set mixes imperative verb-noun names (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun-only or noun-noun names (citation, compatibility, timezone, ulid-shape). This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and each has a separable utility. The count itself is fine, but the server appears to have drifted from the 'ULID shape check' purpose into a general web/time/format utility bag.
As a privacy-focused inspection toolkit, it covers URL, domain, robots, time, status codes, ULID, and JSON shape checks. However, there are notable gaps such as missing common format validators (UUID, email), no URL encoding/decoding, and the compatibility tool feels like an unexplained dead end.