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, but it discloses virtually none. It does not state what happens when invoked, what the output is, whether it is read-only, or how url, host, and json are involved. Even the implied read-only nature of a name catalog is not explicit.
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 short and contains no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment. It reads more like a title than a tool definition, so the brevity is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.
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 loosely related optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague one-line description, there is not enough information for an agent to know what to pass, what to expect back, or when to use the tool. The description is not complete enough for reliable selection or invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only echoes the zone parameter concept. It does not clarify why url, host, and json are accepted parameters for a tool about 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 is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource statement. 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' essentially restates the tool name and adds only 'common' and 'for clock calls,' without saying whether the tool lists, validates, returns, or filters timezone names. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like lookup-timezone or clock.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' provides a weak contextual hint, but there are no exclusions, conditions, or named sibling alternatives. An agent cannot determine when this tool is the right choice.
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 target clearly distinct resources: URL components, IP version, robots.txt, time zones, JSON, and HTTP status codes. However, citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent might pause to determine which tool applies.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun compounds like status-catalog and iana-zones, so there is no consistent semantic naming pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility server, and each tool performs a distinct small task. The scope is broad—covering URLs, HTTP, time, and JSON—so it feels less tightly focused than a single-domain server.
The set covers simple URL inspection, HTTP status lookup, current time retrieval, and JSON validation. Natural gaps remain, such as timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, or deeper network diagnostics, so the surface is useful but not comprehensive.