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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a set of names but not what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it mutates state, or what happens with different inputs. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the domain label.
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 very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified to the point of being more a label than a functional description. It is concise in length but not appropriately informative for the tool's apparent scope.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what input to provide, what output to expect, how the tool relates to url/host/json/zone, or when an agent should call it instead of timezone or utc-time.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not clarify why url, host, and json are present in an IANA timezone tool, but the schema already documents each parameter individually.
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 conveys that the tool relates to common IANA timezone names for clock-related operations, but it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with a verb and resource. It does not clearly say whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or converts timezones, leaving the exact action vague.
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 the tool should be used when a clock-related operation needs IANA timezone names. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like timezone or utc-time, and it offers no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.
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 functionally distinct, but citation vs normalize-url and timezone vs utc-time could be confused. color-hex-ok has no real description beyond the server name, making its purpose ambiguous.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is mixed: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json), and color-hex-ok doesn't fit any pattern. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun or noun style.
11 tools is numerically modest, but the server name implies a CSS hex color scope, and only one tool relates to that topic. The other utilities form an arbitrary grab bag, so the count is not appropriate for the stated purpose.
For the stated CSS hex color purpose, there is only color-hex-ok with no visible parse/convert/manipulate operations. If interpreted as a general utility server, there is no coherent domain to assess, so the surface feels incomplete either way.