time_formatsThe current time in several formats at once: a Unix timestamp, Unix time with microseconds, an ISO 8601 date and time at an optional UTC offset, and Swatch Internet Time. Named timezones such as Europe/Oslo are answered by get_current_time. No API key, no account and no sign up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | UTC offset as a sign and four digits, from -1200 to +1200, for example +0200 or -0530. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that no API key or account is needed, and it enumerates what is returned, but it does not discuss output formatting details such as precision or the shape of the returned string. The additions are modest beyond what annotations supply.
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 output formats are front-loaded in the first sentence and the sibling boundary follows immediately, so the reader gets the essentials fast. The closing 'No API key, no account and no sign up' is slightly promotional phrasing, and the Swatch Internet Time mention may be noise for most callers, but overall it is tight.
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?
This is a simple, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the formats returned. What remains unclear is the precise serialization of the response (delimiters, ordering, microsecond precision), which an agent might need to parse it reliably.
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% and the single parameter is optional with a pattern and range already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only says the offset is 'optional' and applies to the ISO 8601 output, adding a little scope meaning but no format or default detail beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb-resource pair ('the current time') and enumerates the exact formats returned: Unix timestamp, Unix time with microseconds, ISO 8601 with optional UTC offset, and Swatch Internet Time. It also draws an explicit boundary against the sibling get_current_time for named timezones, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.
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?
It clearly routes named-timezone requests to get_current_time, which is an explicit when-not rule. It does not mention the closely related siblings convert_timestamp (converting a supplied timestamp) or list_timezones, so the alternative space is only partially mapped.
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.