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 fully disclose behavior, but it only states that the tool relates to common IANA timezone names. It does not explain whether the tool lists zones, validates a zone parameter, returns metadata, or has side effects. The behavior is effectively opaque.
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 economical, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It conveys almost no actionable information and lacks any structural guidance for invoking the tool.
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 tool has 4 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a vague label. There is no explanation of return value, invocation pattern, or how the parameters contribute to the tool's purpose. This is far from complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The schema explains each parameter individually, but the tool description adds no meaning about how url, host, and json relate to IANA timezone names, leaving the semantic connection unclear.
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') with no verb indicating what the tool does—list, return, suggest, or validate. It restates the tool's name ('iana-zones') without specifying an action or resource, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.
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 alternatives. The sibling list includes related time/timezone tools, but the description never mentions them or gives selection criteria. A caller cannot determine whether to use this tool or a sibling.
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 target distinct concerns such as URL normalization, robots parsing, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. A few URL/HTTP utilities overlap in input type, but descriptions clarify differences: citation adds HTTP status, normalize-url drops query/fragment, and domain-shape focuses on hostname labels.
Names consistently use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix noun-style names like status-catalog and timezone with verb-style names like inspect-robots and validate-json. There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a mixed utility server covering URLs, HTTP, JSON, and time. A few entries like mime-json and compatibility feel marginal, but the overall count is not bloated.
The surface covers URL inspection, robots, HTTP status codes, JSON validation, and timezone utilities without obvious dead ends. Some related web utilities are absent, but the privacy-focused descriptions suggest those are intentionally excluded.