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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses no behavior: no indication of side effects, return value, whether it lists data or performs a lookup, or any constraints. The bare noun phrase provides essentially no behavioral information.
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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single noun phrase does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's action, inputs, or output.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description explains neither return values nor how it relates to the four provided parameters. The name suggests a list of timezone names, but an agent has no reliable basis for calling or interpreting the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and leaves unclear why url, host, and json are present for a tool about IANA timezone names, but the schema itself already documents each property.
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 a resource ('Common IANA timezone names') rather than an operation. It does not state what the tool actually does, such as returning or validating timezone names, making it little more than a restatement of the tool name with a vague 'clock calls' context.
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 a usage context: an agent might use this tool when needing timezone names for clock-related tools. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', nor any exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Tools cluster into URL/HTTP and time-related groups, but within each cluster the purposes are mostly distinguishable. citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all touch hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and weekday-utc all return current time data, so an agent could briefly hesitate when selecting among them.
All names use lowercase hyphens, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern. Some tools use verb-object naming like inspect-robots and normalize-url, while others are plain nouns like citation, timezone, and status-catalog, making the set feel inconsistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count for a utility server and does not feel bloated. However, the selection spans many unrelated concerns—URL parsing, time, JSON validation, robots.txt, HTTP status—so the set feels broader than a single focused purpose.
For a privacy-focused URL/HTTP utility set, there are notable gaps such as no redirect or header inspection, and for time utilities there is no timezone conversion tool. The surface covers basic atomic operations but lacks the cohesive lifecycle or workflow coverage that would make it feel complete.