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 discloses nothing about side effects, network access, authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. The one-line fragment places the full transparency burden on itself and says nothing.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key phrase 'IANA timezone names' appears early. It is concise and front-loaded, though the brevity sacrifices operational clarity.
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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and close sibling tools, the one-line fragment is severely under-specified. It does not state what the tool returns, how it behaves, or how it relates to siblings like 'timezone' or 'validate-json', whose purpose the url and json parameters echo.
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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, establishing the baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the parameter list (url, host, json, zone) appears mismatched with the stated timezone-name purpose, though 'zone' aligns.
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' is a noun phrase that closely restates the tool name 'iana-zones' without a verb, leaving the actual operation (list, validate, or resolve) unclear. It adds a vague usage context but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'normalize-url'. The only hint, 'for clock calls', is too vague to constitute actionable usage direction.
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 purpose: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while iana-zones, timezone, and utc-time all relate to time. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog. Only a few tools have truly distinct, non-overlapping functions.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is a consistent visual style. However, the pattern is inconsistent: some are imperative verbs (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json) while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone, status-catalog). The names are readable but do not follow a predictable verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and falls within the typical well-scoped range. Some tools feel trivial or overlapping, such as lang-it and the multiple time-related tools, but the total is not excessive.
The tool set has no coherent unifying domain: it mixes URL parsing, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, and a language tag. Obvious operations like URL validation, timezone conversion, or HTTP status details are missing, and the grab-bag nature makes it impossible to assess complete lifecycle coverage.