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 present, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals nothing about side effects, return format, error handling, or the effect of the four input parameters. The tool's 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 extremely brief, but brevity without substance is not effective. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and reads more like a tagline than a functional description. It is front-loaded with the tool name variant but fails to convey actionable information.
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 has a simple schema and no output schema, but the description is so vague that it does not enable an agent to understand the tool's role within the broader set of sibling tools. It does not explain what 'common IANA timezone names' are used for or how to invoke this tool correctly, leaving a critical gap in 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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), giving them some individual meaning. However, the tool description does not clarify how these parameters interact or which are expected or optional. Since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but no additional value is added.
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 without an action verb. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., list, retrieve, validate) or how it relates to its name 'iana-zones'. The purpose is ambiguous and indistinguishable from a static reference.
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 siblings like 'timezone', 'tz-europe-london', or 'utc-time'. No conditions, examples, or context are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate invocation scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.