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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies that the tool provides timezone names, with no statement about side effects, output shape, validation behavior, or whether the tool mutates anything. This is inadequate for safe invocation.
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 compact phrase with no unnecessary content, but brevity sacrifices clarity. It is under-specified as a tool definition and does not front-load an action, so the structure does not effectively support agent understanding.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four heterogeneous optional parameters, the description is far from complete. It fails to say which parameters are relevant for which calls, what the response will look like, or how the tool relates to its sibling tools. An agent would have to guess at invocation semantics.
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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify why parameters like url, host, json, and zone coexist in one tool, but the schema itself 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no verb and largely restates the tool name 'iana-zones.' It adds only the vague context 'clock calls' but does not say what the tool actually does, such as returning, listing, or validating timezone names. It also does not distinguish the tool from its sibling tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no alternative routing hints, exclusions, or conditions of use. The only hint is 'for clock calls,' which is too vague to meaningfully guide tool selection.
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.
Several tools overlap around URL inspection (citation vs normalize-url) and time (timezone vs utc-time), though their descriptions clarify differing outputs. The vague compatibility tool adds some ambiguity about when it should be selected.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent style, but the pattern mixes noun phrases like citation and timezone with verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. This is readable but does not follow one predictable convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable size for this collection of privacy-preserving utility functions. The count is not bloated, though the time-related tools could arguably be consolidated.
The tool surface covers the apparent domain of inspecting data shapes without retaining content: URLs, email, JSON, robots.txt, time, and HTTP status. Minor gaps like direct header or DNS inspection exist, but common workflows are not dead-ended.