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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing: no mention of network requests, return format, side effects, or how the catalog relates to the input parameters. The behavioral profile of the tool is completely opaque.
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, which is structurally clean, but its single sentence merely restates the tool name in slightly different words. It is under-specified rather than concise; the sentence does not earn its place because it provides almost no additional information beyond the name.
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 description that is disconnected from the parameters, this definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, what it does with any of the parameters, or how it fits with sibling URL-time-format tools.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not connect the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) to the stated purpose of being a status-code catalog. This mismatch actively confuses: why would a status-code catalog need a JSON string or a timezone name? The description adds no semantic value and fails to resolve the apparent disconnect.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is essentially a noun phrase restating the tool name (status-catalog → catalog of status codes). It does not specify an action verb or explain what operation the tool performs with its parameters (url, host, json, zone). It is not misleading, but it is a near-tautology and provides no distinction from sibling tools.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (citation, normalize-url, parse-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.). There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over others.
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 the URL/host space (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots), so an agent may need to read descriptions carefully to select the right one. The time and HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague enough to create selection uncertainty.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the underlying convention is mixed: verb-first names like normalize-url and validate-json coexist with noun-first compounds like semver-parse and domain-shape, plus bare nouns like citation and timezone. The set is readable but lacks a consistent naming pattern.
For the broad set of read-only utilities exposed, 11 tools is a reasonable count and none feels redundant. However, the scope spans URLs, time, HTTP status, JSON, and semver, which feels slightly broad for a server whose name implies a narrow 'SemVer numbers only' purpose.
The tools cover several useful read-only operations, including URL inspection, time lookups, status codes, JSON validation, and semver parsing. The overall domain is diffuse, and there are notable gaps such as timezone conversion, URL redirect/validation details, and semver comparison.