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 disclosing behavior. It fails to state whether the tool returns a list, validates an input, performs an action, or something else. The mismatch between the described purpose (timezone names for clock calls) and the schema parameters (url, host, json) makes the tool's behavior even more 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. There is no verb, no object, and no structural guidance. The brevity is not an asset when the content is ambiguous.
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?
For a tool with four unrequired parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what action to take, what inputs are meaningful, what the tool returns, or how 'iana-zones' relates to url, host, and json parameters.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal context ('IANA timezone names') but does not explain how the parameters relate to that purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is closer to a noun phrase than a clear statement of what the tool does. It restates the tool name concept ('IANA timezone names') without specifying a verb, action, or return behavior, and it does not differentiate this tool from its siblings (citation, normalize, parse, validate, etc.).
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. The only clue is the phrase 'for clock calls,' but the schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not obviously relate to clock calls, leaving an agent without actionable selection criteria.
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 the URL/host space (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape, inspect-robots), so an agent may need to read descriptions carefully to select the right one. The time and HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but 'compatibility' is vague enough to create selection uncertainty.
All names use lowercase kebab-case, but the underlying convention is mixed: verb-first names like normalize-url and validate-json coexist with noun-first compounds like semver-parse and domain-shape, plus bare nouns like citation and timezone. The set is readable but lacks a consistent naming pattern.
For the broad set of read-only utilities exposed, 11 tools is a reasonable count and none feels redundant. However, the scope spans URLs, time, HTTP status, JSON, and semver, which feels slightly broad for a server whose name implies a narrow 'SemVer numbers only' purpose.
The tools cover several useful read-only operations, including URL inspection, time lookups, status codes, JSON validation, and semver parsing. The overall domain is diffuse, and there are notable gaps such as timezone conversion, URL redirect/validation details, and semver comparison.