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 only states that IANA timezone names are involved, not what the tool returns, whether it performs validation/lookup, how parameters are consumed, or whether the operation is safe or mutating.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses points only because the brevity comes at the cost of essential operational detail, but the dimension measures conciseness and this is concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must do significant explanatory work. It does not explain the expected return value, the role of the four optional parameters, or the relationship between this tool and the sibling timezone tools. For a 4-parameter tool, this is incomplete.
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 documents each parameter individually. The description adds very little parameter meaning: 'for clock calls' is too weak to explain why url, host, and json are relevant to timezone names.
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 conveys a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a domain ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a verb and never states the actual action of the tool. The parameter names (url, host, json, zone) do not obviously map to a simple 'list of zones' operation, so the tool's function remains 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like timezone, tz-europe-madrid, or utc-time. 'For clock calls' hints at a narrow context, but there is no explicit condition, no alternative named, and no exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.