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?
With no annotations and no mention of side effects, safety, or read-only behavior in the description, the tool's transparency is low. It is unclear if the operation is destructive or has external effects.
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 concise (one sentence) and structurally fine, but conciseness comes at the expense of essential information, making it less effective.
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 no output schema, the description is wholly insufficient. It does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to each other or what the tool does with them, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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, which sets a baseline of 3. However, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') appear generic and not tailored to the tool's stated purpose of IANA timezone names, reducing clarity.
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 vague and lacks a clear verb or action. It does not specify whether the tool lists, validates, converts, or retrieves timezone names, making its purpose 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: URL parsing, HTTP status codes, timezone handling, JSON validation, and robots.txt fetching. Even overlapping areas like URL tools focus on different aspects (origin/path vs. host/scheme vs. domain labels).
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens convention (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). No camelCase, underscores, or mixed styles, making the naming pattern predictable and uniform.
With 11 tools, the set sits within the typical 3-15 range. The domain is a mix of unrelated utilities (URL, time, JSON, HTTP), which feels slightly unfocused but not excessive.
The tools cover common operations for their respective areas: URL parsing, time/UTC, JSON validation, and HTTP status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no URL encoding/decoding or generic HTTP request tool), but the current set is reasonably comprehensive for its stated purposes.