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 must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'. It does not mention side effects, return format, or how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used.
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 and syntactically simple, which aids readability. However, it omits essential functional information, making the brevity more harmful than helpful for a correct tool selection.
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 the odd mixture of parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are valid, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools.
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 are inconsistent with the tool's apparent purpose: 'url' says 'normalize or cite', 'json' says 'validate', which are actions belonging to sibling tools. The 'zone' parameter is the only one matching IANA timezone names, and 'host' is unexplained in this context.
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 names the resource 'IANA timezone names' and a purpose 'clock calls', but lacks a clear verb or action (e.g., list, retrieve, validate). It is not obvious whether this tool returns a list of names, checks a name, or performs another operation, especially given the unrelated-looking parameters.
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 instead of the sibling tools like 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'validate-json'. The description does not explain selection criteria or mention alternatives.
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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both analyzing URLs, and 'compatibility' and 'status-catalog' both dealing with HTTP statuses. However, each has a distinct focus (scheme/status vs. origin/path; classification vs. catalog), so they are not fully redundant.
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case pattern with clear verb-noun or noun-only structures (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'inspect-robots', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
With 11 tools, the set is well-sized for a utility collection covering URL, HTTP, JSON, time, and language functions. It is within the typical 3-15 range and does not feel bloated or sparse.
The tools cover a diverse set of standalone web/REST utilities, but there is no cohesive domain or lifecycle (e.g., no CRUD operations, no clear workflow). Some areas could be missing (e.g., DNS lookup, header inspection), but each tool is self-contained for its stated purpose.