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?
The description reveals no behavioral aspects such as return format, side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. With no annotations present, this lack of transparency leaves the agent fully in the dark about what to expect.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, so it is concise. However, it is too terse to convey essential meaning and lacks any structure that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Given the tool has four parameters and a potentially ambiguous purpose, the description is far from complete. It does not mention the output format, how the parameters are used, or what distinguishes this tool from related tools, leaving critical gaps.
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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose.
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 states a purpose ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') but is vague and does not explain how the input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to that purpose. It is unclear whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or performs some other operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any specific conditions or use cases that would help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.