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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it discloses almost nothing: no filtering, lookup, validation, mutation, side effects, or return behavior. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to inform an agent about what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single vague phrase earns no credit when it omits the essential operation and context.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of how up to four heterogeneous parameters are used. An agent cannot reason about valid inputs, expected outputs, or behavior from this definition.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents each parameter, but the description adds no meaning and creates confusion: the tool is about IANA timezone names, yet the schema also accepts url, host, and json. The description does not explain how these unrelated-looking parameters relate to the tool's 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase, not a statement of what the tool does. It restates the tool name without specifying an action, resource, or result, and does not distinguish this from sibling tools 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?
Only 'for clock calls' hints at a use context, but there is no explanation of when to use this tool versus siblings such as timezone, utc-time, or validate-json. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
Citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all process URLs or hostnames with partially overlapping outputs, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones cluster into a separate time-related group. Compatibility is especially vague and adds confusion.
All tool names share a lowercase-hyphen style, but they mix noun phrases like citation and status-catalog with imperative verbs like normalize-url and validate-json. The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.
Ten tools is a reasonable, navigable number for a utility server. However, several tools such as timezone, iana-zones, and validate-json feel tangential to the apparent HTTP Status focus, so the count is slightly over-inclusive.
The tool set mixes HTTP/URL, time, and JSON validation concerns without forming a coherent workflow or domain coverage. Significant gaps remain, such as HTTP header inspection, timezone conversion, and broader URL or JSON operations.