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, but it only says the catalog is 'short' and about 'common HTTP status codes.' It does not state whether the tool returns a list, filters based on input, or has any side effects, though 'catalog' weakly implies a read-only reference.
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 sentence with no filler, which is concise. But it is under-specified for a tool with four unrelated parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the brevity is a liability rather than a well-structured summary.
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 does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, how any of the four parameters relate to the catalog, or what the agent should expect as output. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool from this definition.
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 even though the description adds nothing about parameters. However, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely disconnected from the stated catalog purpose, and the description provides no mapping between them and the tool's behavior.
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 essentially restates the tool name ('status' + 'catalog') with 'HTTP' added, but never states an action or operation. It tells the agent what the resource is about, but not what the tool does with it or how it should be invoked.
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 given about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions described, and the mention of 'HTTP status codes' provides no basis for choosing this over tools like compatibility, citation, or inspect-robots.
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 target distinct resources like URLs, hostnames, robots.txt, timezones, and JSON. The main overlap is between citation and normalize-url, which both expose host information from a URL, and between timezone and utc-time when the requested zone is UTC. Descriptions are generally clear enough to disambiguate.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object like normalize-url and validate-json, while others are nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, and each tool has a distinct small purpose. A few could be consolidated, such as utc-time with timezone or citation with normalize-url, but the count is not excessive.
The server covers basic URL inspection, time retrieval, JSON validation, and word counting, but notable gaps exist such as URL validation, timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, and JSON formatting. The surface is more of a grab bag than a coherent full-featured utility domain.