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 says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what is returned, or how errors are handled. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to count as meaningful behavioral transparency.
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 short, but the shortness is under-specification rather than econoy, it is a fragment with no verb and no front-loaded action. It could be expanded with a callable verb and usage context without waste.
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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides no return format, no call semantics, and no relationship among parameters. An agent cannot know what to pass in or what to expect back. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for a multi-parameter tool.
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 already describes all four parameters clearly, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema: it does not explain how url, host, and json relate to the stated timezone purpose. This leaves the parameter set confusingly broad for an agent.
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 is a noun phrase, 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' with no verb indicating a callable operation. It essentially restates the tool name iana-zones and fails to explain what the tool does with its four parameters. An agent cannot tell whether this returns a list, validates a zone, or performs some other action.
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 sentence or clause states when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The sibling tool citation is never mentioned, and no call pattern or prerequisite is described. An agent is given no decision rule for 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 are clearly separate: URL parsing, robots inspection, time lookups, and JSON validation occupy distinct niches. The main confusions are citation vs normaliz-url, both URL inspection, and compatibility, whose classification purpose is vague.
All names use kebab-case, but the parts of speech vary: normalize-url and validate-json are verb-object, while citation, timezone, and iana-zones are noun phrases. This makes the naming readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 11 tools, the server is within the well-scoped range and no tool feels redundant. The scope is broad—URLs, HTTP, time, JSON—but the count itself is not excessive.
As a loose utility server, it offers a few operations per category rather than full coverage: time has current/lookup but no conversion, URL has inspection but no content fetch by design. Missing obvious helpers like URL comparison or timezone conversion, though the server likely aims to be minimal.