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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the inputs, whether it returns a list or performs an action, or any side effects. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a purpose but not the behavior. This is critically insufficient for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.
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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key phrase 'IANA timezone names' and is appropriately short. However, its brevity sacrifices meaningful content, though conciseness itself is well executed.
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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the overall operation, the relationship between parameters, expected return value, or any constraints. An agent would not know how to call this tool correctly, making it effectively non-usable.
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 each parameter (url, host, json, zone) has a clear individual description. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, and its reference to 'IANA timezone names' only loosely connects to the 'zone' parameter. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not contradict the schema but also does not enhance understanding.
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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' suggests a static list of timezone names, but the input schema contains parameters for URL, host, JSON, and zone, implying a different operation (e.g., normalization, validation). The purpose is vague and does not state a clear action or resource. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time, which likely also relate to timezones.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like timezone, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description gives zero contextual usage information.
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 have distinct purposes, such as byte-count, validate-json, and utc-time. However, citation and normalize-url both handle URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide time information, which could lead to occasional misselection.
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (byte-count, timezone, status-catalog) while others are verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no clear verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
11 tools is a reasonable count for a utility server covering URLs, time, robots, and data validation. Each tool does something different, though a few are quite trivial, making the set slightly broad but not excessive.
The tools cover several common utility categories like URL normalization, current time, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. However, the scope is broad and shallow, leaving obvious gaps such as domain lookups, HTTP request mechanics, or date formatting, and there is no unifying workflow to judge full coverage.