The actual current date and time, fresh at this call — UTC (the clock every seal is stamped in), the library's home zone, and optionally any IANA zone you name. Your own sense of 'today' is months old; this is the correction. Never cached; unresolvable zones are declared, never guessed at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | IANA zone name, e.g. America/New_York or Europe/Berlin; omit for UTC + the library's home zone |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are never cached, zones are declared unresolvable rather than guessed, and it returns both UTC and home zone plus optional IANA. This adds practical behavioral context beyond just 'get current time.'
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The metaphor about 'your own sense of today' adds character but earns its place by explaining the tool's necessity. 'Never cached' and zone-declaration behavior are relevant, though the second sentence is slightly long.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what time it returns, freshness, timezone handling, and error behavior. It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., object shape or units), but the intended behavior is clear enough for agents.
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 fully describes the 'tz' parameter with examples and default behavior, achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this but does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 the current date and time, with explicit zones (UTC, home zone, optional IANA). The verb is implied (get/fetch) and the resource is current time, which is distinct from siblings like timeline or resolve. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.
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 gives clear context: 'Your own sense of today is months old; this is the correction' signals when to use this tool (whenever current time is needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is unique enough that no alternative is evident. It also mentions 'Never cached' to emphasize freshness.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.
Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.
86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.
The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.