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, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'common IANA timezone names' with no mention of side effects, return format, permissions, or what happens with the provided parameters. The behavior is essentially undisclosed.
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 extremely short (one sentence) but under-specifies the tool's functionality. Brevity without substantive content is not effective conciseness; it omits essential information an agent needs to use the tool correctly.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how inputs are used, or how it differs from related siblings. It is grossly inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, the tool description does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to timezone names. The description adds zero semantic context beyond the schema, and the parameters appear disconnected from the stated purpose, creating confusion.
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 names a resource ('Common IANA timezone names') but no clear action or verb. 'for clock calls' is vague and doesn't specify whether the tool lists, validates, or converts timezones. It does not differentiate from siblings like timezone or utc-time.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.