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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Short catalog' suggests a read-only lookup, but side effects, output format, and availability are never stated. The agent cannot know what calling this tool returns or whether it is safe.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance—one terse noun-phrase sentence does not give the agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains none of their roles or the tool's return value. For a tool with this complexity and minimal scaffolding, the description is incomplete.
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 individual parameters are documented. However, the description does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the tool's input expectations unclear.
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 names a specific resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but lacks a verb—it says what the tool is, not what it does. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by topic, though the operation remains implicit.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, normalize, validate). The context implies a lookup/reference use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are stated.
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: citation, normalize-url, and url-host all return host information for URLs, differing only in extra fields. timezone and utc-time both provide current time, and iana-zones is closely related. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names mix conventions inconsistently: some use verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun-like (citation, compatibility, timezone) or noun-noun (url-host, status-catalog, iana-zones). The pattern is not predictable, making it harder to anticipate related tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, but the scope is scattered across URL handling, timezones, JSON validation, and HTTP status codes. The count is not extreme, yet the tools feel less like a cohesive set and more like an arbitrary collection.
The stated domain is unclear—URL host utilities are mixed with unrelated time and validation helpers, so complete coverage is impossible to assess. For URL tools, there are multiple overlapping operations but no clear lifecycle; for time, there is no conversion or formatting beyond current time. Significant gaps exist for any single coherent purpose.