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 present, and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, validation behavior, or whether it modifies anything. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about runtime behavior.
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 contains no filler, but it is too terse to be useful. It lacks a clear verb and does not organize information about behavior or parameters in a helpful way.
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?
There is no output schema and no explanation of what the caller should expect in return. The description does not cover important context such as whether this tool returns a list, validates input, or is intended for a specific workflow.
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?
Although the schema has descriptions for all four parameters, the description does not explain how 'url', 'host', or 'json' relate to IANA timezone names. Only 'zone' is obviously relevant, leaving the other parameters confusing and unexplained.
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 rather than an explicit verb action, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., list, return, or validate). It vaguely mentions 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but does not specify the resource or outcome.
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 closely related sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. No conditions, alternatives, or context are provided.
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.
Each tool name and description clearly targets a distinct function (URL parsing, timezone lookup, JSON validation, etc.), with no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase-hyphenated format (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'status-catalog'), following a uniform naming convention.
11 tools is a reasonable number for a general utility set, though some tools (like 'citation' and 'compatibility') seem abstract and may overlap conceptually with others.
The server name 'Miles to kilometers' implies a unit conversion focus, but none of the tools perform any unit conversion. The toolset is a hodgepodge of unrelated utilities, making it incomplete for its stated purpose.