Find the hours where 2-12 IANA timezones are all inside working hours. Returns the best contiguous window plus a full 24h grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD (default today) — DST is resolved for that date | |
| zones | Yes | IANA zone names, e.g. ["America/Detroit","Europe/Berlin"] | |
| work_end | No | Local end hour, 1-24 (default 17) | |
| work_start | No | Local start hour, 0-23 (default 9) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return values (best window and 24h grid) and the 2–12 timezone constraint, but it omits behavioral details such as DST resolution, handling when no overlap exists, or how 'best' is determined. Some behavioral context exists but it is not comprehensive.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the output. No filler or redundant content; every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the primary behavior and return values. It covers the key concept and output structure, though it could be more complete regarding edge cases or the definition of 'best'—but the schema covers parameter details, so the gap is not severe.
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. The description adds no specific meaning beyond the schema—'working hours' hints at work_start/work_end, but the schema already states these with defaults. No additional parameter semantic value is provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('2-12 IANA timezones') and clearly states the output ('best contiguous window plus a full 24h grid'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like golden_hour_windows by explicitly framing the operation around overlapping working hours across multiple IANA zones.
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 implies when to use the tool—when you need the hours when 2–12 timezones are all within working hours—but it does not reference sibling tools or provide explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. This is implied usage rather than direct guidance.
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 distinct, but there is overlap between local ops tools (gbrain_get/list/search, host_memory_get/set, forge_loop_status, list_mesh_snapshot, etc.) and public status/product tools (forge_status, popular_tools) which could confuse an agent. Descriptions help by tagging local ops, but the boundaries remain blurred.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., get_product, list_live_products, csv_to_markdown). A few names like now_iso and lorem_ipsum deviate from the verb-first style, but overall the naming is predictable and consistent.
With 40 tools, the server is overloaded for a coherent set. Many are simple utility functions that could be consolidated, and the mix of generic utilities, product APIs, and local ops adds unnecessary bulk, pushing the count well above the comfortable range.
The server lacks a clear domain, making it impossible to assess lifecycle coverage. While it offers many utilities, there is no coherent surface—missing common operations for any single category (e.g., no CRUD, no file handling) and many tools feel randomly assembled rather than forming a complete workflow.