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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool provides common IANA timezone names, which suggests a read-only list result, but it does not clarify whether the 'zone' parameter filters the output, why 'url', 'host', and 'json' parameters appear in the schema, or whether network access or authentication is required.
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 a single short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core concept efficiently, although its brevity leaves important behavioral and usage gaps that other dimensions capture.
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 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns beyond 'names', whether inputs affect the result, or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably determine correct invocation from this definition alone.
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 each parameter already has a type and description, earning the baseline score of 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning about how parameters relate to the tool's purpose—especially the presence of unrelated-looking parameters like 'url' and 'json'—so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 clearly identifies the resource being provided: common IANA timezone names intended for clock calls. It is understandable at a glance, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'timezone' tool.
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' weakly implies a usage context, but the description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', no exclusions, and no conditions. An agent would have to guess which tool to use for a given timezone-related request.
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 outputs, but citation and normalize-url both return URL components and overlap on host/scheme. The time-related tools (iana-zones, timezone, utc-time) share a domain, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent may struggle to select it correctly.
All names are lowercase and kebab-case, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes noun labels like citation and timezone with verb phrases like inspect-robots and validate-json, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'UUID Mint' and contains a loose collection of URL, time, HTTP, JSON, and UUID utilities. The count is not excessive, but the tools do not form a cohesive, well-scoped set.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so common workflows are only partially covered. For example, there is UUID generation but no UUID validation, timezone lookup but no timezone conversion, and URL inspection but no full URL parsing or content retrieval.