Current local time in America/Los_Angeles.
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'Page content is not stored,' which signals a privacy-relevant, non-persistent behavior. It does not clarify whether the check is a mutating action, but the read-oriented wording implies a non-destructive operation.
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?
Two brief sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, plus a useful one-line behavioral note. No wasted words.
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?
The description is too sparse for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It ignores the 'json' and 'zone' parameters entirely, leaving the agent to guess when or why they would be supplied alongside a citation request.
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 the mapping of 'url' to host/scheme/HTTP-status output, but does not explain the 'json' or 'zone' parameters, leaving their relationship to the stated purpose unclear.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a URL') with concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status). However, the schema also accepts 'json' and 'zone' parameters that the description doesn't account for, so the stated scope is narrower than the actual input surface.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling-tools list is garbled and unusable, and the description never names an alternative or exclusion condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key privacy behavior ('No identifiers are retained'), which is helpful, but it fails to explain what the tool does with the input (e.g., does it validate format? does it trigger side effects like logging or calling external services?).
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 extremely concise at one sentence with a follow-up clarification. It front-loads the main action and adds the key behavioral note without waste.
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 it has 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns, how the classification is presented, or what 'compatibility' refers to. This is insufficient for an agent to call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides sufficient meaning for simple string inputs.
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 'Show how this request is classified' indicates the tool provides a classification but is vague about what 'classification' means (e.g., compatibility check, formatting validation, risk assessment). It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria are provided. The description doesn't mention alternatives or cases where this tool should not be used, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (no WHOIS/ownership lookup) but says nothing about return values, side effects, or how parameters like json ('discarded after the check') behave; the only behavioral detail about json lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The negative qualifier is informative and earns its place.
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 heterogeneous optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-liner is insufficient. It does not explain how url, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose, nor what an agent should expect as a result.
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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and even creates ambiguity by describing only hostname splitting while the schema also accepts url, json, and zone.
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 states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and an explicit exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which distinguishes it from ownership-enrichment tools. However, the input schema accepts four unrelated parameter types (url, host, json, zone), so the description only covers part of the tool's apparent surface area.
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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The negative clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a use case but does not state contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup of common timezone names, but it does not state whether this is a static list, whether it has side effects, what happens with the url/host/json parameters, or what the response looks like. This is too thin for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 phrase with no filler words, and the IANA timezone name concept is front-loaded. It is concise, but it is under-specified; this lacks the completeness a tool definition should have.
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 and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and usage comprehensively. With four parameters, all optional, and no statement of what the tool returns or how parameters affect the result, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool. The description is far too sparse for the available context.
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 baseline is 3; each parameter already has a schema description. The description mentions IANA timezone names and clock calls, which connects to the 'zone' parameter, but it adds no meaning to url, host, or json, nor does it explain why those parameters exist on a tool called iana-zones.
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 (IANA timezone names) and the context (clock calls), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does with these names. It is not a pure tautology of the tool name, but it is too vague for an agent to know whether this returns a list, filters zones, or validates names.
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 any sibling tool, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'for clock calls' implies a use case but does not explain how the four input parameters relate to that use case or when an agent should choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the output is 'group counts only,' which is honest about the return scope. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. There's no info about caching, redirects, errors, or what happens with unparseable robots.txt files.
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 minimal and efficient — one short sentence. It's front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, though it's arguably too terse.
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 the mismatch between required parameters (0) and the tool's stated purpose (fetching a robots.txt — which should require a URL), this tool has a significant gap. The description doesn't clarify which parameters are needed for this tool to work. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't note any return value details beyond 'group counts.'
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 JSON schema already documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema. The relevance of parameters like 'json' and 'zone' to fetching a robots.txt is unclear — only 'url' or 'host' seem naturally connected.
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 says 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only,' which gives a specific verb (fetch), a resource (robots.txt), and a return type (group counts). It's clear about the narrow scope but doesn't explicitly distinguish this from other tools that might fetch web resources, so no sibling differentiation.
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 description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool. The sibling-tools list is just a single entry 'citation' — the description doesn't mention it at all. The tool name 'inspect-robots' suggests robots.txt inspection, but the description provides no guidance on when this is preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key transformation (query and fragment are dropped), but it remains silent on side effects, error handling, URL validity requirements, and output format.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and transformation. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the return value is only vaguely described as 'origin, host, and path.' It omits the output structure or example, and doesn't mention the extra parameters, leaving some ambiguity about expected invocation.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description implies 'url' is the primary input but does not clarify how host, json, and zone relate to normalization, which could confuse an agent despite the schema descriptions.
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 names a specific operation: returning origin, host, and path from a URL and dropping query/fragment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots, though it does not explicitly address the other schema parameters.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only context is that it operates on URLs, which is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
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. It only states that something is a 'catalog' without revealing whether the tool performs reads, transformations, validations, or side effects. No behavior is disclosed regarding how the parameters are consumed, what happens to the input, or what the tool returns.
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 reads quickly, but its brevity comes from being under-specified rather than efficient. It is essentially a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name and does not earn its place with any actionable content. The sentence is structured fine, but the content value is minimal.
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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how to invoke the catalog, what input is expected, what output to anticipate, or how the parameters are used. An agent has no information to invoke the tool correctly with meaningful inputs.
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 itself documents each parameter (url, host, json, zone). Per the rubric, this earns a baseline of 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how these parameters relate to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the semantic mapping unclear.
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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'status-catalog' and lacks a specific verb or action. It does not clarify whether the tool looks up, validates, or generates status codes, nor how it relates to its four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone). It is a vague noun phrase rather than an actionable tool definition.
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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it serves, or how it differs from sibling tools like citation, compatibility, or timezone. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. An agent is left entirely to guess the intended invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output concept ('Current time') and does not mention time format, DST handling, whether the time is server-side, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid zone name.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the essential purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified.
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 4 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the role of three of the four parameters, nor describe the return value format, which is significant for an agent to use 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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly copied from other tools (normalize/validate concerns) and are irrelevant or misleading for this timezone tool. The description adds no meaning beyond the zone parameter's existing IANA timezone name description, and it fails to clarify what url, host, and json do here.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Current time' + 'named IANA timezone'. This clearly conveys what the tool returns and is not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'utc-time', which likely also returns current time, so some ambiguity remains.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, the sibling 'utc-time' probably handles UTC, and the relationship between UTC time and named IANA zones is not addressed. The mismatched schema descriptions for url, host, and json further muddy usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current local time in America/Los_Angeles.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the result is the current local time; it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, how the various input parameters are handled, or what the response format is.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could arguably be expanded with invocation guidance without becoming overly verbose.
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?
The tool appears simple, but the presence of four optional parameters, including url/host/json, creates ambiguity about what inputs are actually used and what the caller should provide. There is no output schema and no hint about return structure, leaving important context missing for correct invocation.
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 schema already describes all four parameters clearly, giving 100% schema description coverage and a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional param-level meaning, and the relevance of url/host/json to a timezone lookup remains unexplained, but the schema text itself is sufficient for basic parameter understanding.
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 clearly states that the tool provides the current local time for America/Los_Angeles, which is a specific resource and result. It is somewhat close to restating the tool name, but it does convey a distinct purpose and is distinguishable from siblings like utc-time or timezone by its explicit zone focus.
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 instead of sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time, nor how it should be invoked. The description implies a simple lookup but does not explain which inputs are relevant, especially since the schema includes url, host, json, and zone with none required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the trivial fact of returning UTC time. The schema exposes four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) that the description never reconciles with the tool's stated purpose, leaving the actual behavior confusing.
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 sentence with no waste, which is appropriate for a trivial tool. However, it borders on under-specification: given the mismatched schema, the description needs at least one clarifying sentence about output format or parameter irrelevance.
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 and no annotations, so the description must carry the full context. It fails to state the output format, explain the four dangling parameters, or differentiate from overlapping timezone siblings. An agent can safely call it with zero arguments, but anything beyond that is unknowable.
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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the parameter descriptions themselves describe generic operations (normalize/cite URL, validate JSON, IANA timezone) that are nonsensical for a UTC-time tool. The description adds no meaning to these parameters and does not clarify why they exist.
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 states the tool's function clearly: it returns the current UTC timestamp. The verb is implied and the resource is specific. However, it does not distinguish itself from the 'timezone' sibling tool, and 'timestamp' leaves the output format ambiguous (epoch vs ISO 8601).
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 use this tool versus the timezone or tz-america-los-angeles siblings. The description also gives no hint about whether the four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) are ever relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It proactively discloses that the body is discarded after the check, which is genuinely useful for safety. However, it omits return behavior, error cases, and what 'valid' means in this context.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the discard side-effect is stated efficiently.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the definition is incomplete: no output schema, no return-value description, and a mismatched 4-parameter schema that is not explained. An agent gets no help understanding why url/host/zone appear or what the tool returns, leaving a significant gap between the description and the actual call surface.
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 the baseline is 3, but the schema itself is inconsistent with the description: it includes url, host, and zone with unrelated semantics, while the description only references the body/json. The description fails to clarify that only the json parameter matters or how the other parameters should be handled, actively confusing parameter selection.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is clear and not a tautology. It doesn't explicitly name sibling distinctions, but the discard note helps separate validation from normalization/citation siblings.
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. There are no explicit conditions, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
citationcompatibilitydomain-shapeiana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezonetz-america-los-angelesutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Current local time in America/New_York.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The time tools overlap heavily: timezone can replicate utc-time and tz-america-los-angeles, so an agent may struggle to pick the right one. The URL/HTTP tools are mostly distinct, but compatibility is vague and domain-shape/normalize-url both operate on hostname structure.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated style, which is clean and predictable. However, the semantic pattern is mixed: some names are verb-first (normalize-url, inspect-robots) while others are bare nouns (citation, timezone, utc-time), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in absolute terms, but the set is divided between time-related tools and unrelated URL/HTTP inspection utilities. Under the 'clock' identity, the count feels inflated and the purpose is diluted.
For a clock service, the core time queries are covered, but there is no timezone conversion or exhaustive zone listing. If viewed as a network-inspection suite, some exclusions are intentional, yet compatibility is underspecified and the overall domain remains unclear.