Location and Timezone MCP Server by RoxyAPI
Server Details
City geocoding and timezone resolution for birth data, for AI agents, one API key.
- 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The three tools have distinct purposes: listing countries, fetching cities for a country, and searching cities by name. However, the second tool's name misleadingly suggests it returns countries rather than cities, which could cause minor confusion.
The naming pattern is inconsistent: 'get_location_countries_iso2' is misnamed because its description says it returns cities, not countries. The other two tool names are accurate but the overall pattern is broken by this mismatch.
With 3 tools covering country listing, city retrieval by country, and city search, the count is well-scoped for a location/timezone server. Each tool earns its place without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers key functionalities: enumerating countries, retrieving cities with timezone data, and search. A minor gap is the lack of a direct timezone lookup by coordinates, but for its stated purpose it is reasonably complete.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_location_countriesList all countries - ISO codes and city coverageAInspect
Returns every country with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes, plus the number of searchable cities per country. Use this endpoint to build country dropdown menus, regional filters, or to check city coverage before querying. Sorted alphabetically by country name. Covers Europe, Americas, Asia, Middle East, Africa, and Oceania.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum items to return per page. Range: 1-250, default 50. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip for pagination. Default 0. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return contents (codes, city counts), sorting order, and global coverage. No mention of mutation or destructive actions—appropriate for a read-only list endpoint.
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?
Three sentences each serving a distinct purpose: output definition, usage suggestions, and organizational details. No unnecessary 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?
The description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality for a simple listing tool. Although there is no output schema, the description indicates what is returned (ISO codes, city counts) and the sorting. Parameter handling is clear.
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 both parameters (limit, offset) are well-documented with defaults, ranges, and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 every country with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes and number of searchable cities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_location_countries_iso2 (likely only ISO2) and get_location_search by its comprehensive scope.
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 explicitly lists use cases: building dropdown menus, regional filters, checking city coverage before querying. It provides context on sorting and regional coverage but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools within the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_location_countries_iso2Get cities in a country - Geocoding directory sorted by populationAInspect
Returns all cities for a specific country, identified by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (e.g. DE for Germany, FR for France, GB for United Kingdom, US for United States). Each city includes geographic coordinates, IANA timezone, and DST-aware UTC offset for direct use in astrology birth chart, horoscope, transit, and panchang calculations. Cities sorted by population with the largest metropolitan areas first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, case-insensitive. Common codes: DE (Germany), FR (France), GB (United Kingdom), US (United States), ES (Spain), IT (Italy), NL (Netherlands), IN (India), BR (Brazil), JP (Japan). | |
| limit | No | Maximum items to return per page. Range: 1-100, default 20. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip for pagination. Default 0. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that cities are sorted by population and includes geographic coordinates, timezone, and DST-aware UTC offset, with a mention of their use in astrology calculations. It does not discuss rate limits or error handling, but the behavioral details are sufficient for a data retrieval tool.
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: first states the main purpose, second adds output details and use case. No superfluous text. Front-loaded with key information.
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?
No output schema, but the description explains the return fields (coordinates, timezone, offset) and the use case (astrology calculations). For a list tool with parameters fully described in schema, this provides sufficient 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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds examples for iso2 and notes case-insensitivity, but does not significantly enhance meaning for limit and offset beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.
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 it returns all cities for a specific country identified by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. It specifies the resource ('cities') and action ('returns'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_location_countries or get_location_search, though the purpose is distinct.
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 for retrieving cities in a country but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_location_search. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_location_searchSearch cities worldwide - Geocoding autocomplete with coordinates and timezoneAInspect
City autocomplete and geocoding search across 23,000+ locations in 240+ countries, including deep coverage of Indian tier-2 and tier-3 cities. Returns geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude), IANA timezone, and DST-aware UTC offset for each match. Built for birth chart location pickers, horoscope apps, event scheduling, and any feature requiring place-to-coordinates resolution. Partial name matching with intelligent ranking: exact prefix matches first, then sorted by population for relevance. Common alternate names like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Banaras transparently resolve to their canonical entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | City name to search for. Accepts bare city ("berlin"), city plus country ("berlin germany"), or comma-qualified ("berlin, germany", "springfield, illinois") for disambiguation. Matches against city name, province/state, or combined "city country" queries. Case-insensitive with partial matching (e.g. "ber" matches Berlin, Bern, Bergen). | |
| limit | No | Maximum items to return per page. Range: 1-50, default 10. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip for pagination. Default 0. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses matching behavior (partial, case-insensitive), ranking (prefix then population), return fields (coordinates, timezone, DST offset), and alternate name resolution—all beyond the schema. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and logical flow. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose in listing use cases. Overall, it is efficient for the information density.
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 absence of output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and explains matching logic. It covers disambiguation and alternate names. Minor gap: no explicit mention of response format, but implied by listed fields.
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 description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how 'q' interacts with country names, disambiguation, and alternate names. It also clarifies the pagination intent for 'limit' and 'offset'.
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 specific verbs ('Search cities worldwide', 'Geocoding autocomplete') and clearly identifies the resource (23,000+ locations). It differentiates from sibling tools (get_location_countries and get_location_countries_iso2) by focusing on search and autocomplete functionality.
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 lists concrete use cases (birth chart pickers, horoscope apps, event scheduling) and explains matching and ranking behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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!