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?
There are no annotations and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what kind of response it produces. The behavior is completely unspecified.
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 short, single phrase with no redundant wording or filler. It is concise, though perhaps too terse to convey the tool's function effectively.
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 lacks essential context: what action the tool performs, what inputs are expected for its core purpose, what the output format is, and how it relates to the sibling tools. It is not sufficient for an agent to decide when or how to call it.
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 every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions seem disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of IANA timezone names. Only 'zone' is plausibly relevant; 'url', 'host', and 'json' appear unrelated and their descriptions do not clarify their role in this tool.
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 (IANA timezone names) and context (clock calls), but it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does with these names. It is unclear whether the tool returns, validates, or lists timezone names.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. No usage conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose (country code, URL manipulation, timezone, JSON validation, etc.) with no overlapping functionality, so there is no ambiguity in selecting the right tool.
All names use lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are noun-only (e.g., 'cc-jp', 'iana-zones') while others are verb-noun (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json'). The style is uniform but the grammar is mixed.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable, but the collection feels like a random assortment of utilities rather than a focused feature set, making the size slightly unjustified.
There is no coherent domain to evaluate completeness against. The tools span unrelated areas (ISO, HTTP, timezones, JSON, robots), so the set is incomplete for any single purpose and lacks a clear scope.