[duvera · risk:low] Current date and time in an IANA timezone (e.g. "America/New_York", "Asia/Tokyo"). Includes day of week and DST status. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | Yes | IANA timezone name, e.g. "America/New_York", "Europe/Berlin", "Asia/Tokyo". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'No account required' and includes DST status, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, side effects (likely none), or error behavior for invalid timezones. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 three short sentences that front-load the key information (purpose, timezone, extras, and no account requirement). Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and output features. It mentions day of week and DST status, which are useful. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that the time is fetched from the server or mentioning precision (e.g., seconds vs milliseconds). Minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameter as an IANA timezone name. The description reinforces this with examples and context about what the output includes, but it does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool returns current date and time in a specified IANA timezone, including day of week and DST status. It uses a specific verb ('Current date and time') and uniquely identifies the resource (time for a timezone). No other sibling tool provides time functionality, so differentiation is inherent.
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 description implies the tool should be used when current time in a specific timezone is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or alternatives. Since there are no sibling time tools, the usage context is obvious, but the lack of explicit guidance like 'Use this to get the current time' lowers the score.
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.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
