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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It does not say whether the tool returns a static list, filters by the zone parameter, has side effects, or what the output format is. The only inference is that it provides common IANA timezone names.
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 text is very concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, the single sentence is under-specified in that it lacks a verb and focuses only on the resource, not the action or behavior.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain how url, host, json, or zone should be used, what a typical call looks like, or what the return value is, leaving the agent to guess whether to pass arguments at all.
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 baseline 3 applies even without parameter detail in the description. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, and the schema's url, host, and json descriptions seem unrelated to IANA timezone names, which remains confusing.
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'), not a clear action. It identifies a resource and a context but never states what the tool does with those names, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list-zones.
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?
The phrase 'for clock calls' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list-zones, timezone, or convert-zone. No when-not-to-use or alternative-handling information is given.
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 outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both return host information, timezone/utc-time/iana-zones all revolve around time, and domain-shape/punycode-ok both target hostnames. An agent would need to read descriptions carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
Naming style is inconsistent: some names are verbs (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), some are nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone), and some are quirky compounds (punycode-ok, iana-zones). The consistent lowercase/hyphen formatting is the only pattern.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the server is named for punycode host checking while many tools are unrelated URL, time, and JSON utilities. The set feels padded rather than deliberately scoped.
The tool surface has no coherent domain to be complete against: a punycode host checker would need at least IDN conversion or comparison, while the URL/time/JSON utilities appear as unrelated extras. Significant coverage gaps would likely force agents to combine or externalize work.