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 side effects, read-only status, authentication needs, or behavior regarding the odd set of parameters (url, host, json, zone). The description carries the full burden, but it offers no behavioral transparency.
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, concise sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is front-loaded with the core topic ('Common IANA timezone names'), though the phrase 'for clock calls' is vague and reduces overall informativeness.
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 only a terse noun-phrase description, the tool leaves critical context missing: what it returns, whether it accepts all four parameters or only one, and how it relates to the sibling tools. This is insufficient for reliable agent 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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description itself adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact or why fields like 'json' or 'url' are relevant to 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., returns, lists, or validates). It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'normalize-url', leaving the agent to guess the tool's exact role.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention relevant situations, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'validate-json', so an agent has no decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.