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, data sources, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent has no way to know if this tool modifies state, depends on external services, or what happens if inputs are invalid.
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 short, but brevity without clarity is not effective. It lacks a clear action and context, forcing the agent to infer meaning. While there is no redundant text, the under-specification makes it hard to use.
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 and parameters are insufficient to understand the tool's complete behavior. Even considering sibling tools (e.g., timezone, utc-time), the purpose of iana-zones remains vague. The tool appears to involve timezone names, but the relationship between the URL/host/json parameters and this purpose is unexplained, leaving major gaps.
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 provides descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), but their relevance to the tool's purpose is unclear. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which suggests validation, but the tool name and description are about timezone names. The parameters do not coherently map to a clear function, so the descriptions add little value.
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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') that does not clearly state the tool's action or purpose. It is ambiguous whether the tool returns a list, validates names, or performs some other operation. The verb is missing, making it impossible to understand what the tool does.
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 the sibling tools (e.g., timezone, utc-time). The description offers no conditions or examples, so an agent cannot decide when this tool is appropriate.
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' overlap in parsing URLs and returning host/scheme details, while 'compatibility' is vaguely described. Overall, the boundaries are mostly clear.
Names are consistently lowercase and hyphenated, but mix noun-style names ('timezone', 'citation') with verb-style names ('inspect', 'normalize', 'validate'). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making the naming style inconsistent.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a utility-focused server and within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect, though some could be consolidated.
The set covers URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, robots.txt, language tags, and JSON validation, but lacks broader web-development utilities like DNS lookups or header inspection. The domain is not fully defined, so some gaps are possible.