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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the tool returns a list, performs a lookup, mutates state, or how it handles input. The mismatch between the stated timezone purpose and the url/host/json parameters obscures actual behavior further.
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 fragment, which is concise, but it reads as under-specification rather than effective structure. The sentence does not earn its place because it fails to explain what the tool does or how it relates to its own input schema.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guide available, and it is inadequate. It does not explain return values, the role of the four parameters, or the selection criteria for using this tool. An agent could not confidently invoke this tool based on the provided information.
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 basic description, but the tool-level description adds no meaning beyond the schema. While 'zone' aligns with the timezone theme, 'url', 'host', and 'json' appear disconnected from 'IANA timezone names', leaving the agent unable to understand why those parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
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...') with no verb indicating what the tool actually does, such as list, validate, or return. It also fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The presence of unrelated schema parameters (url, host, json) makes the stated purpose even harder to pin down.
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 invoke this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'validate-json'. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to support a reliable selection decision. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
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.
Several tools overlap in input or output: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. The descriptions clarify the intended focus somewhat, but an agent could still misselect between these pairs.
Tool names mix standalone nouns like citation and timezone with verb-noun compounds like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and hyphenation is inconsistent. Most names are still readable and weakly predictable, but there is no strong naming convention.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's apparent 'Robots Inspect' focus is supported by only inspect-robots. The rest are broad URL, time, and JSON utilities, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a server named Robots Inspect, robots.txt coverage stops at group counts and offers no way to retrieve actual rules, test URLs against directives, or compare agent policies. The unrelated utilities do not fill this gap, so core inspection workflows would dead-end.