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 behavioral disclosure. The description adds minimal context (that these are 'common' IANA timezone names and are intended for 'clock calls'), but it omits what the tool does, what it returns, or any side effects. For a tool likely returning a static list, the description discloses almost nothing about behavior.
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, which is good, but it is under-specified. A single phrase 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' gives almost no operational information; this is not genuine conciseness but a lack of substance.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters that appear mutually unrelated, an agent has insufficient context to call this tool correctly. The description provides no mention of return values, use case, or parameter relationships. This is severely incomplete.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) are documented in the schema but none are described as optional or required based on use case. The description says 'timezone names for clock calls', which hints that the 'zone' parameter is relevant, but it does not clarify which parameters apply to this tool or how they relate to each other. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds little semantic meaning.
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' describes a static list of timezone names, not an actionable tool operation. It has no verb indicating what the tool does; there is no way for an agent to know whether this tool returns a list, filters, or performs some action. The name 'iana-zones' is about as informative as the description, so this is close to a tautology.
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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like 'citation'. The description mentions 'clock calls' but does not explain how an agent would use this list of timezone names or when it would be relevant. An agent cannot decide between this and the sibling tools from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.