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 disclosure burden. It only says the catalog is 'short' and about HTTP status codes; it does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, how optional parameters are handled, or what the response looks like.
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 or redundancy, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of needed context.
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 the tool is unexplained, a one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. Return format, optionality semantics, and use case are all missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has an individual description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to connect url/host/json/zone to the catalog, but it does not actively misdescribe them.
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 clear resource ('common HTTP status codes') and a tool type ('catalog'), so an agent can infer it returns status-code information. However, it lacks an action verb, and the input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to a status-code catalog, which muddles the intended operation.
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 this tool, what inputs are appropriate, or how it differs from sibling tools. The sibling list contains no obviously related alternative, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over another.
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 fall into overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both process URLs, while timezone, utc-time, and unix-now all report current time. The descriptions clarify the exact output of each, but an agent could still struggle to pick between them without careful reading.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, giving a consistent visual style. However, the pattern mixes noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, unix-now) with verb-noun imperatives (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), so there is no single predictable naming convention.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and each utility has a narrow function. The count itself is reasonable, although the server name suggests a time-focused purpose while many tools are actually web/URL utilities.
The set covers common stateless operations: current time, timezone lookups, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. Notable gaps include epoch-to-human timestamp conversion and a way to fetch or inspect HTTP response details beyond status, which would be expected in a general utility server.