Hopi

HTTP status code reference

hopi_http_status_codes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a standard HTTP status code by number and get its name, meaning and class (1xx to 5xx), or search all standard codes by a word in the number, name or description. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/http-status-codes/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No	An HTTP status code to look up, for example 404
`query`	No	A word to search for across code numbers, names and descriptions

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`name`	No
`class`	No
`summary`	Yes
`className`	No
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the source (hopi.co.uk), the output content (name, meaning, class), and the two lookup modes. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary function, explains the alternative search mode, and includes a source link. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a reference lookup tool. It explains both modes, what is returned, and the source. An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return value details are not needed. There are no missing prerequisites, side effects, or edge cases that an agent would need to know for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('code' and 'query') already documented in detail. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameters themselves—it just restates what the schema says. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('look up' / 'search'), the resource (HTTP status codes), and the two distinct modes: by number or by word. It also names what is returned (name, meaning, class), distinguishing it from sibling calculator/converter tools. This is a strong, unambiguous purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly covers usage by describing both modes: if you have a code, look it up; if you have a word, search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool is unique among siblings (a reference lookup vs. calculators/converters), the context is clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating when to use code vs. query, though the schema already encodes this via anyOf.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hopi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?