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?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects, such as whether the tool reads or writes data, or what side effects it might have.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks actionable structure and fails to provide meaningful information. It is too brief to be useful.
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's apparent complexity and the presence of four unrelated parameters, the description is severely incomplete. There is no output schema or explanation of how parameters interact with the timezone theme.
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 parameter descriptions are generic and do not align with the stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which suggests URL handling rather than timezone names, and 'json' is 'JSON text to validate', unrelated to timezones.
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' does not state any specific action or verb. It is vague and fails to clarify what the tool does, especially given the mismatched parameter names.
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 or how it differs from related tools like 'timezone' or 'normalize-url'. The context of 'clock calls' is unclear.
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.
Some tools have overlapping concerns: citation and normalize-url both parse URLs and return host/scheme, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time. compatibility is also vague, making its relationship to the other tools unclear.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphen separators and mostly use noun phrases, with a few verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). The pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, though the set covers a broad mix of URL, HTTP, time, and JSON utilities rather than a single focused domain.
The set covers common inspection tasks (URLs, robots.txt, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validity), but it lacks deeper operations like URL content retrieval, ISO duration conversion/parsing beyond shape, or more comprehensive HTTP status/request details.