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 only says 'catalog,' disclosing nothing about read-only vs. side effects, network access, output format, or how inputs like url/json/zone are consumed. The schema hints at a more active operation than a simple catalog lookup, yet the description does not clarify the discrepancy.
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 six-word sentence with no filler and the subject is front-loaded. It is efficient, but brevity comes at the cost of substance: the description is so thin it fails to convey the tool's purpose in a usable way.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no required params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what response to expect, or how the catalog relates to the schema fields. The mismatch between description and schema makes this inadequate for correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds zero meaning beyond the schema and actually conflicts with it. The parameters url, host, json, and zone appear unrelated to a catalog of HTTP status codes, and the description does nothing to explain the connection. This leaves parameter intent confusing rather than clarified.
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 concrete resource ('common HTTP status codes') and a catalog/reference function, which loosely distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation or normalize. However, the action is ambiguous ('catalog' is not a clear verb like 'lookup' or 'get'), and the input schema containing url, host, json, and zone does not visibly support a status-code catalog lookup. An agent cannot confidently determine what operation this tool actually performs.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention sibling tools, selection conditions, or exclusions. The word 'short' weakly implies a lightweight quick-reference use, but this is too implicit to be useful.
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.
Most tools have distinct outputs, but citation and normalize-url both return URL components and overlap on host/scheme. The time-related tools (iana-zones, timezone, utc-time) share a domain, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent may struggle to select it correctly.
All names are lowercase and kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes noun labels like citation and timezone with verb phrases like inspect-robots and validate-json, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'UUID Mint' and contains a loose collection of URL, time, HTTP, JSON, and UUID utilities. The count is not excessive, but the tools do not form a cohesive, well-scoped set.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so common workflows are only partially covered. For example, there is UUID generation but no UUID validation, timezone lookup but no timezone conversion, and URL inspection but no full URL parsing or content retrieval.