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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'common IANA timezone names' without stating what the tool does with them (e.g., returns a list, validates a zone, or transforms a URL). The schema suggests unrelated operations, creating a serious mismatch that undermines transparency.
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, which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. It does not front-load the primary purpose or provide any hierarchical details. Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness when the content is so vague.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the relationship between parameters and the stated timezone functionality, or any operational context. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not connect any of these parameters (url, host, json, zone) to the stated purpose of timezone names. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and fails to explain how 'zone' relates to 'common IANA timezone names'. The mismatch reduces the baseline from 3 to 2.
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 states a resource ('common IANA timezone names') but lacks an explicit action verb and does not clarify whether the tool returns a list, accepts a zone, or does something else. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', which also relate to timezones. The schema's parameters (url, host, json) are unrelated to timezone names, making the purpose even more ambiguous.
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 alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The only hint ('for clock calls') is vague and does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to select this tool over siblings.
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 are clearly distinct, but 'citation' and 'compatibility' have vague descriptions that could overlap with HTTP status handling, and 'status-catalog' adds further potential confusion. URL-related tools are distinguishable but require careful reading.
All names consistently use lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix noun phrases like 'timezone' and 'status-catalog' with verb-object forms like 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json'. This is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 11 tools, the set is reasonably sized and not overwhelming. Each tool appears to serve a single utility purpose, fitting the apparent web-utility domain.
The collection covers common web development utilities: URL handling, HTTP status, time, timezone, JSON validation, robots.txt inspection, and language tags. There are no major dead ends, though the server name 'Language zh' does not strongly align with the broader tool set.