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 must disclose behavior, but it says nothing about side effects, return format, or how the parameters interact. The claim about 'clock calls' is unhelpful and leaves the agent guessing about what happens when a url, host, or json is supplied.
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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being a placeholder. Conciseness is not the same as adequacy; here the brevity prevents the tool from being usable.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify the operation, parameter roles, and return value. It does none of this, so an agent cannot correctly select or invoke the tool based on this definition.
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 schema descriptions cover each parameter individually, but the tool description adds no meaning about how they relate to timezone names. The high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, but the description fails to connect the parameters to the stated purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on which parameters to supply or how they combine.
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' hints at a reference list but never states what the tool does (e.g., returns a list, validates a zone, or converts). No verb or resource is specified, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) suggest broader functionality that the description does not explain. It is not a tautology but is far too vague to be actionable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like timezone or utc-time. No alternatives are mentioned, and the description does not indicate a context in which this tool is preferred.
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 URL-centered tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) and time tools (timezone, utc-time) overlap in input type and could be confused, though their output purposes are mostly distinct. The vague 'compatibility' tool lacks a clear boundary, and 'lang-hi' seems unrelated to the rest.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual pattern, but the grammatical style is mixed: some are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), some nouns (citation, timezone), and some are opaque (compatibility, lang-hi). It is readable but not a clean verb_noun convention.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a utility server and not bloated. However, a few tools feel like one-offs or constants (lang-hi, iana-zones), so the set does not feel perfectly curated.
The tool surface is a grab bag of URL, HTTP status, robots, time, JSON, and language utilities, so there is no coherent domain to complete. For a web/URL toolkit, obvious operations like header inspection, content fetch, or DNS/WHOIS are missing; for a language server, only a tag constant is present.