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 implies a read-only informational catalog and says nothing about output shape, whether parameters are used or ignored, or any side 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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A noun phrase with no operational detail does not earn its place as the only explanatory content for a tool with four 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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a set of siblings, the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently. It identifies the topic but leaves return format, argument usage, and selection criteria unstated.
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 without parameter details in the tool description. However, the description adds no connection between url, host, json, and zone and the HTTP status-code catalog, leaving their roles ambiguous.
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 is a noun phrase that largely restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'catalog of ... HTTP status codes.' It identifies the subject matter but provides no verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, looks up, or validates status codes.
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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like citation, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description neither explains a use case nor rules out alternatives, leaving selection entirely to inference.
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 in purpose, especially citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape, all of which inspect URLs or hostnames. The time-related tools utc-time and year-utc also overlap because a timestamp contains the year. Other tools are more distinct, but the boundary between these clusters is not always clear.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives some visual consistency. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb-object names (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are standalone nouns or noun-noun compounds (citation, timezone, status-catalog, year-utc). This makes the naming readable but not predictably consistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility-style server, neither too sparse nor overwhelming. The count feels slightly inflated by the mixed domains, but no individual tool is redundant enough to cut. Overall, the count is appropriate for a general-purpose utilities server.
The set covers a few small domains—URL inspection, time/timezone, HTTP status, and JSON validation—but none are fully fleshed out. For example, there is no timezone conversion or date formatting tool, and URL tools lack any operation for actual page retrieval. While the tools are self-contained, the overall surface feels more like a collection of samples than a complete workflow.