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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It is a noun phrase with no verb, no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, return format, or whether it validates, normalizes, or lists data. It provides essentially no behavioral information.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is so sparse that it omits essential action and context. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. It is not effectively front-loaded because there is no substantive content to front-load.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, how the parameters interact, what it returns, or when to invoke it. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on the provided description alone.
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% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter context (e.g., how 'zone' relates to url/host/json), but it does not mislead. It fails to clarify the apparent disconnect between timezone focus and unrelated parameters, yet the schema already documents each field individually.
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' conveys that the tool relates to timezone names but lacks a verb indicating what the tool does (e.g., list, validate, get). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'tz-america-chicago'. The mismatch between the description (timezone-focused) and schema (which includes url, host, json) further muddies intent.
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 description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
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 inputs and outputs, but citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, while timezone, tz-america-chicago, and utc-time all return current time. Descriptions clarify the differences, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog or citation.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is readable, but they mix verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog. There is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'America/Chicago clock' only four tools relate to time. The remaining seven URL, HTTP, robots, and JSON utilities are off-purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The time-related tools cover current time in Chicago, UTC, named IANA zones, and a zone list, so the clock core is usable. However, there is no timezone conversion or date arithmetic, and the unrelated utilities do not form a coherent broader domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete.