List all available IANA time zones. Returns the full list of IANA time zone names accepted by get_current_time. Returns: Array of IANA time zone names..
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns the full list and names accepted by get_current_time, but no further behavioral details are necessary for a simple read-only list.
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 with two sentences, no redundant content, and front-loads the action. Minor trailing period typo does not detract from clarity.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and its relationship to the sibling tool, making it complete for its scope.
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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details, making the baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IANA time zones'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting the list is accepted by get_current_time.
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 usage context: this list is for get_current_time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. Since there is only one sibling, the relationship is clear enough.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists valid IANA time zones, the other retrieves the current time for a specified zone. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get_current_time' and 'list_time_zones'. The naming is clear, predictable, and uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but covers its core functionality. The count is borderline for a standalone utility, though the tools are both essential and well-scoped.
The server covers the essential operations for a world time service: discovering valid zones and retrieving current time details. Minor gaps like time zone conversion or multi-zone lookups exist, but they are not critical for the stated purpose.