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 exist and the description discloses no behavioral traits. The url/host/json parameters hint at network or validation behavior, but nothing is stated about side effects, read-only status, or error handling.
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 brief with no wasted words, but it's structured as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb statement, which reduces its actionability for an agent.
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 is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters relate to its purpose, or how it differs from sibling timezone tools. The internal inconsistency between description and parameters compounds the gap.
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?
All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but they describe actions (normalize, cite, validate) that don't cohere with the tool's stated timezone purpose. The mismatch adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 doesn't state a clear action (list, validate, convert?). The parameters (url, host, json) suggest different functionality than timezone names, creating confusion about the tool's actual purpose.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling timezone tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at context but doesn't clarify selection criteria.
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.
Tools overlap in purpose: 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both process URLs, while 'timezone' and 'utc-time' both return time-related data. The distinction between 'domain-shape' and 'normalize-url' is also unclear without deeper inspection.
Names mix single words (citation, compatibility, timezone) and hyphenated compounds (domain-shape, normalize-url, validate-json). Some names are vague and not action-oriented (e.g., 'citation', 'compatibility'), and 'lang-ru' is narrowly scoped without a pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls within the acceptable 3-15 range and does not feel excessive. The number is reasonable for a utilities server, though a couple of tools could be merged without loss of clarity.
The set covers several web-related utilities (URLs, status codes, time, JSON, robots), but the domain is not clearly defined and lacks common counterparts (e.g., encoding/decoding, hashing). The inclusion of a single language tag tool ('lang-ru') suggests a narrow or arbitrary scope.