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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it reveals nothing about what the tool does with its inputs or what side effects occur. The only behavioral clue in the entire definition ('discarded after the check') lives in the schema's json parameter, not the description. An agent cannot predict this tool's behavior at all.
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 entry is short, but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. It is a sentence fragment that front-loads no actionable information and omits the essential 'what does this tool do' clause.
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 tool with 4 params, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is woefully inadequate. It does not clarify which params are meaningful, what the tool returns, or how it relates to its sibling tools—an agent has essentially no basis for a correct 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds zero meaning and the params (url, host, json) appear to be grab-bag leftovers from sibling tools (normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json). The description fails to connect 'IANA timezone names' to the schema's param set beyond the zone field, so it actively misleads rather than merely adding nothing.
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' reads like a data fragment, not a tool function. It restates the tool's name (iana-zones) and hints at an audience ('clock calls') but never states a verb or what the tool actually does—list, validate, resolve, or return timezone 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 given for when to use this tool versus its siblings. Sibling tools timezone and utc-time are clearly related, yet nothing distinguishes this tool from them—no exclusions, no conditional routing, no prerequisites.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but URL-related tools like citation and normalize-url and time tools like timezone and utc-time occupy adjacent territory. Descriptions are clear enough that an agent can usually select correctly.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which provides a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone), verb-style names (normalize-url, validate-json), and abbreviation-style names (km-to-mi), so there is no uniform verb_noun convention.
A server named 'Kilometers to miles' having 11 tools is excessive, since only km-to-mi relates to the stated purpose. The count could work for a general utility server, but it does not fit the apparent conversion-focused scope.
As a unit conversion service, the server is severely incomplete: it only supports kilometers-to-miles and lacks the reverse conversion or other conversions. As a utility collection, the tools are unrelated and form no coherent domain whose completeness can be judged.