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 must disclose behavior; it only states what the tool's data is about, not what the tool does, what it returns, or what side effects or prerequisites exist. The presence of a parameter described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' further confuses the behavioral model and is not reconciled with the timezone-name description.
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, which is acceptable for conciseness, but it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence and does not convey the range of parameters. Its brevity sacrifices clarity rather than earning its place through precision.
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, and no annotations, this description leaves out essential context: what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant for which invocation, and how the tool's behavior maps to its stated timezone-name purpose. The mismatched parameter set makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
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 each parameter has an individual description. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning to url, host, or json beyond those field-level descriptions, and it does not clarify how those parameters relate to a tool about IANA timezone names.
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 names a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and the intended domain ('clock calls'), which gives a rough sense of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not clarify how the input parameters (url, host, json) relate to timezone names, leaving the tool's actual function ambiguous.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. A sibling named 'timezone' exists, but there is no distinction drawn between it and iana-zones, so an agent cannot decide which to invoke based on the description.
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 have distinct outputs, but there is noticeable overlap in the URL/HTTP cluster (citation, normalize-url, inspect-robots, status-catalog) and the time cluster (utc-time, timezone, iana-zones). The 'compatibility' tool is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Naming styles are mixed: some tools use verb-noun patterns like 'validate-json' and 'normalize-url', while others are noun-based like 'citation' and 'compatibility', or hyphenated domain terms like 'fx-eur' and 'iana-zones'. The inconsistent conventions make the set feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Currency EUR' and only one tool relates to currency. The rest are URL, time, HTTP, and JSON utilities, so the count is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
For a currency-focused server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no exchange conversion, rate lookup, historical data, or multi-currency support. The unrelated utility tools do not compensate for the missing core currency functionality.