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, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only behavior, or safety implications. It is unclear whether the tool mutates data, returns information, or has other effects.
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 very short and avoids redundancy, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. The single sentence provides minimal information and does not logically connect the purpose to the parameters.
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 description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, the role of each parameter, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameters leaves the tool functionally undefined.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are not explained in relation to the catalog of HTTP status codes. There is no description of how each parameter is used or what role they play, making the tool's inputs meaningless.
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 states it is a catalog of HTTP status codes, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated, making the actual purpose unclear. The verb 'catalog' is vague and does not specify what action the tool 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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 are clearly separate: URL parsing, robots inspection, time lookups, and JSON validation occupy distinct niches. The main confusions are citation vs normaliz-url, both URL inspection, and compatibility, whose classification purpose is vague.
All names use kebab-case, but the parts of speech vary: normalize-url and validate-json are verb-object, while citation, timezone, and iana-zones are noun phrases. This makes the naming readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 11 tools, the server is within the well-scoped range and no tool feels redundant. The scope is broad—URLs, HTTP, time, JSON—but the count itself is not excessive.
As a loose utility server, it offers a few operations per category rather than full coverage: time has current/lookup but no conversion, URL has inspection but no content fetch by design. Missing obvious helpers like URL comparison or timezone conversion, though the server likely aims to be minimal.