Server time
server_timeReturns the current server time (ISO 8601, UTC).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
FlowVolt
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (ISO 8601), the timezone basis (UTC), and the fact that the value is the current server time, which is sufficient given the tool's trivial behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action, the result, the format, and the timezone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current server time') plus format details (ISO 8601, UTC). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools add and echo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's purpose explicit and implies it is used whenever the server's current time is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated to time retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool performs a completely distinct function—numeric addition, text echoing, and time retrieval—with zero overlap in purpose. An agent would never confuse these tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
add and echo are single-word verbs, while server_time is a noun phrase with an underscore, creating a slight inconsistency. The names are readable and lowercase, but the pattern is not uniformly maintained.
Tool Count3/5
Three tools falls within the acceptable range, but the tools are so unrelated that the set feels like a random collection rather than a purposeful server. A more focused server would either have more tools around a coherent domain or make a clearer case for each tool.
Completeness2/5
There is no identifiable domain or workflow to assess coverage against; the tools are disconnected and provide only trivial operations. As a usable server for any real task, it offers almost no meaningful capability surface.