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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not state what the tool returns, how it handles inputs like url, host, json, or zone, or whether it is read-only. The description is too thin to make the tool's behavior predictable.
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 short and front-loaded with the key phrase 'IANA timezone names,' so it is not verbose. However, it is underspecified for a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations; conciseness here comes at the cost of useful content.
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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several siblings, yet the description gives almost no actionable context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to each other, or how to invoke it correctly. This is inadequate for reliable agent use.
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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that 'zone' relates to IANA timezone names, and it offers no clarification for url, host, or json.
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 ('common IANA timezone names') and hints at the intended use ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a clear verb describing the action. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like timezone or utc-time beyond the implication that this supplies names rather than performing time conversion.
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 phrase 'for clock calls' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over timezone or utc-time, and no exclusions or alternative references. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
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 distinct, but several overlap around URLs and time: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all operate on URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time overlap in purpose. The compatibility tool is especially vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names are mostly lowercase and hyphenated, but the set mixes noun-style names like citation, timezone, and status-catalog with verb-style names like inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count on its own, but the set feels scattershot relative to the server name 'ISO country US,' which implies a focused country-data service. Only one tool actually relates to the country domain, while the rest span unrelated web, URL, time, and JSON utilities.
As a collection of lightweight, privacy-oriented utilities, the surface is reasonably broad. However, the country-data aspect is severely thin with only cc-us, and there are notable gaps like DNS or HTTP header inspection if this is meant to be a general web-utility server.