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 behavioral disclosure. It offers almost no behavioral context: no mention of output shape, side effects, sorting, pagination, or how parameters affect behavior. The only hint is that the resource is a 'short catalog', which suggests a read-only listing, but the description fails to disclose anything beyond that.
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 seven words, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds something about the catalog's scope. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies the tool's purpose, which prevents a full 5.
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 no output schema and no annotations, and its four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) are semantically unrelated to 'HTTP status codes'. The description does not bridge that gap, explain return values, or indicate which parameters to supply. An agent cannot tell what calling this tool returns or how to use it 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 description coverage is 100% — each of url, host, json, and zone has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds zero parameter semantics and does not explain how these parameters relate to a status-code catalog (e.g., whether passing a URL filters the catalog). The schema carries the entire semantic weight.
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" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool's name (status-catalog) with minimal clarification ('common HTTP status codes'). It lacks a verb describing what the tool does with the catalog, such as 'look up', 'list', or 'return'. It also does nothing to distinguish the tool from siblings like citation or validate-json.
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, what triggers it, or which alternatives to prefer. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or criteria. With sibling tools available, an agent has no basis to determine when the status-catalog is the right choice over citation or compatibility.
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 are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both return URL-derived fields, and timezone/utc-time overlap in purpose. compatibility is vague enough that an agent could struggle to know when to use it over the URL inspection tools.
Names mix bare nouns (citation, timezone, compatibility) with verb-noun forms (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the grammatical pattern is not, making the set feel ad hoc.
Ten tools is not inherently too many, but the set includes unrelated areas like timezones, HTTP status codes, and JSON validation under a URL Normalize server. Several tools do not clearly earn their place relative to the stated purpose.
The only tool directly addressing the server's core purpose is normalize-url, and it only returns origin, host, and path. Missing URL comparison, query/fragment handling, or rewrite capabilities leaves the main workflow incomplete, while unrelated tools do not fill those gaps.