mcp-server
Server Details
Discover cities where it's currently 5PM around the world with timezone and location data.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: find_random_fivepm_city locates a city where it's currently 5PM using a specific website, while get_city_info retrieves detailed information about a specified city by its geonameid. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the task.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern: find_random_fivepm_city and get_city_info. The verbs 'find' and 'get' are distinct but appropriate to their actions, and the structure is uniform throughout the set, providing predictability and readability.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a general-purpose city information domain. While the tools cover specific tasks, the scope is limited, lacking broader operations like searching cities by name, listing cities, or handling timezone conversions beyond the 5PM query, which might hinder agent workflows.
The tool surface has significant gaps for a city information server. It lacks basic CRUD-like operations such as searching cities by criteria, updating data, or deleting entries, and does not cover common use cases like timezone comparisons or geographic queries beyond the two provided tools, leading to potential agent failures in broader tasks.
Available Tools
2 toolsfind_random_fivepm_cityBInspect
Use findyourfivepm.com to find a city where it's currently 5PM showing all relevant details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
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 mentions the tool uses findyourfivepm.com and returns 'all relevant details', but doesn't specify what those details include, whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries external data.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and includes just enough detail about the source website.
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 (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a basic lookup tool. However, it lacks details about what 'all relevant details' includes in the response, which would be helpful since there's no output schema to clarify this.
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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.
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's purpose: 'find a city where it's currently 5PM showing all relevant details' using findyourfivepm.com. It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('city'), and scope ('where it's currently 5PM'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_city_info' 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_city_info' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_city_infoCInspect
Get detailed information about a specific city by its geonameid
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geonameid | Yes | The unique geonames identifier for the city |
Tool Definition Quality
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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, or behavioral traits like error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in this context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'geonameid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific city'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_random_fivepm_city', which appears to serve a different function (finding a random city at 5 PM), so the distinction isn't explicitly addressed.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving city details by geonameid, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to the sibling tool, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!