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, and the description does not disclose any side effects, data transformations, or whether the tool is read-only or mutating. The actual behavior is entirely opaque, making it impossible to predict the tool's impact.
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 extremely brief, which could be seen as concise, but it fails to convey essential information. It is not front-loaded with a clear action or purpose; instead, it is a vague fragment. A single sentence that is meaningful would be better than a short but empty phrase.
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 no output schema and no additional context, and the description is so sparse that the agent cannot determine what the tool does, how to call it, or what to expect. Given the apparent mismatch between the described timezone names and the URL/host/json parameters, the description is completely inadequate for safe and effective 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 description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool's purpose. The schema lists them, but the description adds no semantic context, leaving the agent to guess which parameters are relevant and how they should be populated. The description provides essentially no value beyond the raw schema.
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, not a verb phrase. It does not state what action the tool performs, whether it returns a list, validates a timezone, or converts something. The mention of 'clock calls' is cryptic and the purpose is completely unclear.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparative guidance.
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.
Tools are individually distinct in their operations, but the mix of URL, timezone, JSON, and temperature topics creates confusion about which tool applies to a given task. Names like 'compatibility' and 'citation' are vague and could be misinterpreted.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use hyphenated lower-case (f-to-c, iana-zones), others use single words (citation, timezone), and some use multi-word phrases (normalize-url, validate-json). This lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.
At 11 tools, the count is within the typical range, but it feels excessive for a server ostensibly dedicated to Fahrenheit-to-Celsius conversion. The number is inflated by unrelated utilities, making the set poorly scoped for the stated purpose.
For a Fahrenheit-to-Celsius converter, there is only one relevant tool (f-to-c). Essential operations like Celsius-to-Fahrenheit, Kelvin conversions, or batch conversions are missing, so the domain coverage is severely incomplete.