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 discloses almost no behavior. It does not explain whether the tool performs a read, validates input, returns a list, has side effects, or requires authentication. The mention of 'clock calls' is too vague to count as meaningful disclosure.
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, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks a verb, usage instructions, and any behavioral detail, so the brevity does not serve the agent.
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 output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description leaves the invocation contract almost entirely unspecified. An agent cannot reliably determine what inputs are relevant or what the tool returns.
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%, with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning and does not reconcile the timezone-focused title with the unrelated url, host, and json parameters.
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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It lacks a verb indicating whether it lists, validates, normalizes, or returns zone names, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or validate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list provides no routing hints, and the description gives no context about the intended invoke scenario.
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 in purpose: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, timezone and utc-time both return current time, and compatibility's classification is unclear next to status-catalog. The broad mix of currency, time, URL, and HTTP tools makes selection ambiguous.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-noun pattern. Vague names like citation and compatibility sit beside concrete names like status-catalog and utc-time, making the naming feel arbitrary.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but only one tool relates to the server's stated 'Currency USD' domain. The count is padded with unrelated utilities across timezones, URLs, robots, and JSON, so it does not fit the server's apparent scope.
For a currency-related server, the surface is almost entirely missing: only fx-usd exists, with no conversion, rates, formatting, or currency list. Even as a general utility set, it has no coherent domain and many natural operations are absent.