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?
The description discloses no behavioral details such as side effects, return format, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the tool's runtime behavior is completely 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 simple, but it omits essential information. Conciseness is not valuable when the content is too vague to be useful; the structure itself provides no additional clarity.
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 drastically incomplete for a tool with four unspecified parameters. It fails to explain what inputs are expected, how they relate to timezone names, what output is produced, or any operational context, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
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 the schema documents all four parameters, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' and 'host' are described as normalization/citation targets, while 'json' implies validation, none of which align with 'IANA timezone names'. The schema adds no meaningful semantics to clarify parameter usage.
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 a noun phrase rather than an action, and it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list, validate, convert). It offers no distinction from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'tz-europe-berlin', making the purpose ambiguous.
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, nor any mention of appropriate contexts or prerequisites. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to serve as useful usage direction.
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 purpose: timezone, tz-europe-berlin, and utc-time all return current time, and citation/normalize-url both analyze URL components. 'compatibility' is too vague to distinguish from the other HTTP/classification tools.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent delimiter style, but the pattern mixes verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun phrases (citation, compatibility, status-catalog). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server is named as a clock and only four tools (timezone, tz-europe-berlin, utc-time, iana-zones) support that purpose. The rest are unrelated web/HTTP/JSON utilities, making the set poorly scoped.
For the clock domain, time lookup is covered but timezone conversion is missing. For the broader web/HTTP utilities hinted at by the other tools, the surface is incomplete and lacks a clear lifecycle or workflow, so agents would hit dead ends.