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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns a list, validates input, performs a read-only lookup, or anything else about its behavior, side effects, or output.
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 has no wasted words, which is good, but it is a vague fragment rather than an informative tool definition. Its brevity comes from under-specification, not from efficiently covering the necessary 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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know how or when to invoke this tool. It does not explain the relationship between the timezone domain and the url/host/json parameters, nor what the response looks like.
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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it fails to explain why url, host, and json appear alongside zone for a timezone-names tool. Baseline 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters.
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 a use context ('for clock calls'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb stating what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like timezone, utc-time, or tz-asia-singapore.
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' implies a usage context, suggesting this tool is relevant when working with IANA timezone names. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over timezone, utc-time, or tz-asia-singapore, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.