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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, returns data, or has side effects. The vague wording gives no behavioral insight.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the key term 'IANA timezone names', but the brevity sacrifices essential clarity. Structure is acceptable, yet the content is insufficient to convey the tool's operation.
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 carries a heavy context burden. One vague sentence is insufficient—an agent cannot determine what the tool does, what it returns, or how to construct a valid call.
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?
While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions appear mismatched with the tool's purpose—url, host, and json relate to other tools (normalize-url, validate-json), while only zone relates to IANA timezones. The tool description adds no clarification about which parameters are relevant or how they are used.
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 vague. It names a resource (IANA timezone names) but lacks a clear verb—does it list, validate, or look up these names? 'For clock calls' is ambiguous jargon. It doesn't clearly distinguish 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include timezone and utc-time, which likely overlap, but the description provides no conditions or criteria for choosing iana-zones.
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.
Each tool has a distinct function: URL analysis, JSON inspection, time/timezone, and HTTP status. Only 'compatibility' is vaguely defined and could conceptually overlap with status-catalog, but the other descriptions prevent significant misselection.
Names mix noun-only (citation, compatibility), noun-noun (json-bytes, status-catalog), and verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) styles with no clear pattern. All are readable, but the convention is not systematic or predictable.
With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range. Each tool has a specific purpose, and the set does not feel bloated, even though the overall scope spans multiple utility domains.
URL, JSON, time, and HTTP status areas each have reasonable coverage with no obvious dead ends. However, the lack of a clearly stated central domain makes completeness hard to fully evaluate, and 'compatibility' feels under-specified.