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, the description carries full burden, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or if it has side effects. The 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 concise, using a single sentence, but it is so brief that it omits essential information. Structure is fine, but the content is insufficient.
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 sibling tools and the tool's name, the description fails to explain how this tool fits into the ecosystem. It does not mention what output to expect or how the parameters relate to the tool's function, leaving the context 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?
Each parameter has a clear description (url, host, json, zone), but these are unrelated to each other and to the tool's stated purpose. The inclusion of url, host, and json for a timezone tool is confusing and unexplained, reducing clarity.
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 vague and does not clearly specify what the tool does. It could be a list, a validation, or something else, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or tz-utc.
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. The description does not mention any conditions or examples, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, though time-related tools (timezone, tz-utc, utc-time) and URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) share overlapping domains. However, each tool's specific output and intent are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tools use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens naming convention (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, utc-time). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer function from name.
The server exposes 11 tools, which is a reasonable number for a general-purpose utility. Each tool serves a distinct function without being redundant or excessive, fitting well within the typical range.
The tools cover a broad set of utilities (time, URL parsing, HTTP status, JSON validation, robots.txt), but the server name suggests a clock focus. While time-related functionality is well represented, the additional URL and HTTP tools indicate a mixed-purpose design rather than a fully comprehensive single domain.