Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 does not state whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone name, or relies on any input parameters. The description is not misleading, but it reveals almost nothing about runtime behavior.
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 single sentence is concise and free of filler, which is good, but it is under-specified. It reads more like a heading or tagline than a functional tool description, and the brevity reduces the agent's ability to use it correctly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns and how the optional parameters are used. It does not mention return values, and the schema's url, host, and json parameters appear disconnected from the timezone-names focus, leaving significant ambiguity.
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's reference to timezone names maps loosely to the 'zone' parameter, but it adds no extra meaning about url, host, json, or the exact role of zone beyond what the schema already says.
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 identifies the resource as common IANA timezone names and hints at the clock-call context, but it lacks an action verb such as 'list', 'return', or 'validate'. It adds some meaning over the bare tool name but does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.
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?
Only the phrase 'for clock calls' gives a faint usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions, so an agent cannot confidently decide when to choose this tool over related siblings.
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 operate on URLs (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots) and several on time (business-day, iana-zones, timezone, utc-time), creating some overlap in input types. The descriptions mostly clarify intent, but citation and compatibility in particular could still be confused.
Tool names mix nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and compound labels (business-day, iana-zones, utc-time). There is no consistent verb_noun or other naming pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not excessive numerically, but the server name 'Weekday vs weekend' suggests a single narrow utility, while most tools are unrelated to that purpose. The set feels scattershot rather than deliberately scoped.
The tools span URL inspection, time/date, and JSON validation without a unifying domain, so there is no coherent capability surface to complete. Each mini-cluster has gaps, such as URL tools that only inspect and time tools that lack conversions or date arithmetic.