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 no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or read-only status. The tool could be a simple lookup or an action with side effects; there is no way to tell.
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 and thus concise, but it lacks structure. It does not separate purpose, usage, or output, and the wording is too terse to convey any actionable information. The brevity is not effective because it omits key details.
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 complexity of four input parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does with each parameter, what output to expect, or how it fits into the broader toolset. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description.
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 input schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with generic descriptions that do not relate to IANA timezone names. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' is irrelevant to timezone lookup. The parameter descriptions appear copied from other contexts and offer no meaningful guidance for this tool.
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' suggests a lookup or list but lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., list, validate, convert) or how the input parameters relate to the purpose. The intended functionality is 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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. The agent has no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.
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 are distinct, but http-403 and status-catalog overlap for status-code lookups, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones form a related cluster. citation and normalize-url both expose host/origin info, so an agent could hesitate between them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone, status-catalog) with verb-style names (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), and http-403 is a code rather than an action. The pattern is readable but not consistent.
11 tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is unfocused: URL utilities, HTTP status, time, and JSON validation are bundled together. For a server named 'HTTP 403 forbidden', it feels padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a general stateless utility server, common operations exist, but there are gaps: no timezone conversion, no URL query parsing, and status-code coverage is shallow. The domain is broad enough that completeness is hard to pin down.