current_iso_zoned_date_timeReturn the current date/time for a given IANA timezone as a full ISO 8601 zoned datetime string (e.g. 2026-06-24T10:30:00+02:00).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeZone | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "timeZone": "Asia/Tokyo"
+ },
+ {
+ "timeZone": "Australia/Sydney"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "ISO zoned datetime for specified timezone",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format (ISO 8601 zoned datetime) but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format.
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's simplicity (one parameter, rich annotations, an output schema), the description covers the core purpose and return format. It lacks parameter details, but the schema examples and output schema compensate. Nearly complete for this use case.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'IANA timezone' for the parameter, which adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'timeZone' property name. It does not specify valid values, format, or provide examples.
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/time for a given IANA timezone as an ISO 8601 zoned datetime string. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource 'current date/time', and provides an example format, distinguishing it from siblings like 'current_time' and 'convert_time_zone'.
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 (provide an IANA timezone) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'current_time', 'current_time_ip', or 'convert_time_zone'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.