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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: listing countries, listing cities by country, and searching cities by name. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_location_<suffix>' pattern, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
3 tools is relatively few, but they cover the core needs of the domain (country list, city list, city search). Slightly limited but reasonable for a focused location/timezone server.
The tools cover basic country and city queries and return timezone data, but lack direct timezone-by-coordinates or advanced timezone operations, leaving some gaps for a full location/timezone service.
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. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
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 the output (countries, codes, city count), alphabetical sorting, and global coverage. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only listing endpoint, the provided info is sufficient.
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?
Description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the main result. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more compact.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the response structure, use cases, sorting, and geographic scope. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
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?
All three parameters have full schema coverage (100%), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of sorting does not relate to parameters.
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?
Description clearly states it returns countries with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes plus city coverage. Distinguishes from siblings like get_location_countries_iso2 and get_location_search by mentioning comprehensive data and specific use cases (dropdown menus, regional filters, coverage checks).
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?
Explicitly says when to use (building UI, checking coverage) and describes sorting and coverage regions. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternatives like get_location_countries_iso2 for simpler needs.
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. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by population, includes coordinates and timezone for astrology use, and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination or any destructive potential, but the schema covers pagination params.
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. The first efficiently states the core purpose, and the second adds relevant details (coordinates, timezone, sorting). No redundant or unnecessary words.
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 tool is straightforward (list cities for a country). With 4 well-described params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key features, and use case (astrology calculations). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by providing real ISO code examples and explaining the astrological context, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the 'compact' parameter beyond what the schema already explains.
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 that the tool returns all cities for a specific country identified by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, providing examples and noting the data includes geographic coordinates and timezone info. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_location_countries returns countries, get_location_search searches broadly).
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 for when to use the tool (to get cities for a country) and provides common ISO code examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings.
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. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details return data (coordinates, timezone, UTC offset), matching behavior (partial, case-insensitive, prefix ranking), and special handling of alternate names. This provides comprehensive behavioral insight.
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 informative and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and key features. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized.
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 an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (coordinates, timezone). It covers matching, ranking, alternate names, and use cases, making it fully complete for the tool's purpose.
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% with all parameters described. The description adds value for the 'q' parameter by noting the scale (23,000+ locations) and ranking logic. For other parameters, it adds little beyond schema, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline of 3, and the additional context for 'q' elevates it to 4.
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's a city autocomplete and geocoding search tool, listing specific use cases and coverage details. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools (get_location_countries, get_location_countries_iso2) which are country-focused.
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 clear usage contexts ('built for birth chart location pickers, horoscope apps, event scheduling'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, siblings are distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.
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!