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 of behavioral disclosure, and it carries none: no side effects, no return format, no call semantics. Worse, the schema exposes 'url', 'host', and 'json' parameters that suggest URL normalization and JSON validation behaviors the description never acknowledges, making the definition actively misleading about what the tool does.
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 text is short and free of filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single fragment with no verb and no callable instruction earns no credit for effective structure.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs at least a clear call pattern and return description. This definition provides none, leaving the agent unable to determine what to pass or what to expect back.
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%, which normally justifies a baseline of 3, but the description adds no meaning to any parameter and fails to connect the params to the stated purpose: only 'zone' plausibly matches 'IANA timezone names', while url/host/json appear to belong to sibling tools. The description does not compensate for this internal inconsistency.
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' mostly restates the tool name ('iana-zones' = IANA timezone names) and adds only a faint context hint ('for clock calls'). It contains no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, validates, or returns these names, and the input schema (url/host/json params) actively conflicts with the implied purpose.
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' weakly implies a relationship to clock-related siblings (timezone, utc-time), but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it fits with citation, normalize-url, or validate-json. An agent cannot decide between this and its siblings from the text.
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 overlap in the URL/host/status space: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all return host-like information, and compatibility is vague. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could still misselect when looking for a specific URL metric.
Names mix single-word nouns like citation and timezone, noun phrases like domain-shape and status-catalog, and verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. All use kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server. Most tools have narrow, distinct purposes, though a few time-related and URL-related tools feel somewhat redundant.
The set covers URL normalization, JSON/JWT inspection, robots, HTTP status, and time utilities, but the lack of a single cohesive domain leaves noticeable gaps. For example, there is no generic URL validation, no HTTP header inspection, and the compatibility tool is underspecified.