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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It weakly suggests the tool returns common IANA timezone names, but it does not disclose output format, side effects, filtering behavior, or how the four optional parameters affect the result. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. Brevity here comes at the cost of actionable guidance, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain whether the tool accepts arguments, what it returns, how it relates to siblings like timezone and utc-time, or why url, host, and json are in the schema. The description is too thin to allow confident correct invocation.
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 already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a clock-call context for zones but does not clarify the relationship between the zone parameter and the unrelated-looking url, host, and json parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns', 'lists', or 'provides'. It is not a tautology, but the actual action of the tool remains vague.
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 phrase 'for clock calls' implies this tool is relevant when an agent needs timezone names for clock-related operations. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like timezone or utc-time, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap heavily: citation, normalize-url, and url-host all return host information for URLs, differing only in extra fields. timezone and utc-time both provide current time, and iana-zones is closely related. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names mix conventions inconsistently: some use verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun-like (citation, compatibility, timezone) or noun-noun (url-host, status-catalog, iana-zones). The pattern is not predictable, making it harder to anticipate related tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, but the scope is scattered across URL handling, timezones, JSON validation, and HTTP status codes. The count is not extreme, yet the tools feel less like a cohesive set and more like an arbitrary collection.
The stated domain is unclear—URL host utilities are mixed with unrelated time and validation helpers, so complete coverage is impossible to assess. For URL tools, there are multiple overlapping operations but no clear lifecycle; for time, there is no conversion or formatting beyond current time. Significant gaps exist for any single coherent purpose.