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, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
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 very short, but it lacks critical details. While succinctness is good, here it omits necessary information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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?
The description does not explain what the tool returns, how it should be invoked, or what the parameters mean in the context of timezone names. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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 (url, host, json, zone) are generic and do not relate to the stated purpose of IANA timezone names. It is unclear how these inputs are used or why they are needed.
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 hints at IANA timezone names but does not specify what the tool actually does with them (e.g., list, validate, convert). The vague phrase 'for clock calls' leaves the core function ambiguous.
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 versus the sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no context for selecting it.
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 citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs with overlapping fields, and timezone/utc-time/iana-zones are related. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is minimal.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens, following a consistent pattern (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, utc-time). No mixed conventions or irregular verbs.
With 11 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool appears to serve a distinct utility, and the number is reasonable for a general-purpose toolkit.
The tools form a disjointed collection of unrelated utilities (URLs, time, HTTP, JSON, robots, language tag) with no coherent domain. There is no obvious lifecycle or CRUD pattern, and the set lacks depth in any single area, making it incomplete for any defined purpose.