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. 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' weakly implies a read-only reference resource, but it does not disclose what happens when invoked, whether inputs are validated, what is returned, or whether any side effects occur.
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 and has no filler words, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point that the structure is more a fragment than a useful tool explanation; clarity was sacrificed for brevity.
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 four optional parameters that include url, host, and json, the description does not adequately explain how the tool should be called or what an agent should expect. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently determine inputs, outputs, or behavior.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a slight connection between 'IANA timezone names' and the 'zone' parameter, but does not clarify why url, host, and json are present or how they 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 identifies the resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a usage context ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a verb and does not state what the tool actually does — returns a list, validates a zone, or something else. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'validate'.
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?
The phrase 'for clock calls' provides a slight hint about intended use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no description of prerequisites. The tool could be selected or ignored without clear basis.
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.
Several tools operate on URLs and overlap in scope: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all accept URL-related input and return overlapping metadata. The compatibility tool is too vague to distinguish from the others, and timezone/utc-time are similarly close.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated style, which is readable and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (normalize-url, validate-json) while others are bare nouns or noun-based (citation, timezone, status-catalog).
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. Still, the server feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a focused toolkit, so the count is reasonable but not ideal.
The tool surface covers several URL, HTTP, time, and validation basics, but there is no clear overall domain tying them together. Notable gaps exist depending on intent: no DNS, header inspection, or meaningful ISBN validation beyond digit shape; the server name suggests a much narrower focus than what is provided.