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 present, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or output behavior. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') imply behaviors entirely unrelated to timezone names, adding confusion rather than transparency.
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 brief and not verbose, but it lacks a proper verb phrase or structured purpose statement. It reads as a fragment rather than a clear tool definition.
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?
The description omits essential context: expected output format, whether it accepts input or returns a static list, and how it relates to sibling timezone tools. The mismatched parameters further reduce completeness.
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 the schema describes all four parameters, the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly copied from unrelated tools (normalize-url, validate-json) and contradict the tool's stated purpose. Only 'zone' matches the timezone theme, leaving the schema misleading.
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' is a noun phrase suggesting a list of timezone names, but it lacks a verb and does not clarify the actual operation (e.g., list, validate, or convert). It does not 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or utc-time. No context, examples, or conditions for use are provided.
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.
citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs and can return overlapping fields, while compatibility is vaguely described. The remaining tools are mostly distinct, but the URL-related overlap could cause misselection.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern—e.g., inspect-robots and normalize-url are verb-first, while citation and utc-time are noun-like. Names such as cc-in and compatibility do not clearly signal their action.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, the mix of country, URL, time, and JSON utilities suggests a broader toolkit than the server name implies.
As a set of read-only metadata and validation helpers, it covers URL, HTTP, robots, time, JSON, and a single country lookup. The domain is not clearly defined, and only one country record is exposed, so some workflows may lack a matching tool.