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 carries the full burden of explaining behavior and side effects. It only states what the tool is about, not what happens when invoked, which parameters to supply, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 single phrase is concise and front-loaded, containing no filler. However, it is so terse that it under-specifies the tool's function, so the brevity is not backed by adequate content.
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, no annotations, and four optional parameters with no usage guidance, yet the description does not explain what to pass or what the tool returns. This is severely incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'IANA timezone names' aligns with the zone parameter, but the description does not clarify which of the four optional parameters apply to this tool or how they interact.
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 identifies the resource ('Common IANA timezone names') and narrows its purpose to 'clock calls', so an agent can guess it is a catalog of zones. However, it lacks an action verb such as 'lists', 'returns', or 'looks up', leaving the actual operation implicit.
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?
'for clock calls' hints that this tool should be used in combination with time utilities, but it never states when to call it versus the sibling tools timezone, utc-time, or status-catalog. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are 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.
Several tools overlap around URL and HTTP inspection (citation, normalize-url, inspect-robots, compatibility), making it hard to know which to select for a given task. Timezone tools are clearer but the URL-related tools have fuzzy boundaries.
Names mix noun-style labels (citation, compatibility, timezone) with verb-style labels (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), and some names like citation and compatibility are vague. Hyphenation is consistent, but the overall naming pattern is not.
Ten tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Timezone Clock' while most tools are URL/HTTP utilities. The count feels padded and unfocused relative to the apparent purpose.
The timezone surface lacks common operations like converting between zones or getting offset details, while the URL/HTTP side is a grab-bag of partial capabilities. The tool set does not coherently cover either apparent domain.