Current Time Coordinate
current_time_coordinateCurrent time at lat/lon.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
current_time_coordinateCurrent time at lat/lon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "latitude": 40.7128,
+ "longitude": -74.006
+ },
+ {
+ "latitude": 51.5074,
+ "longitude": -0.1278
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Current time at specified coordinates",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as whether the time is local or UTC, or any caveats. It does not contradict 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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point.
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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description fails to explain what 'current time' means (UTC vs local), accuracy, or time zone implications. The output schema may clarify return format, but the description should add 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 coverage is 0%; no parameter descriptions exist. The phrase 'at lat/lon' weakly implies the purpose of latitude and longitude, but provides no constraints, ranges, or formats. With zero coverage, more detail is needed.
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 'Current time at lat/lon' clearly states the tool returns the current time for a given latitude and longitude. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'current_time' (no location) and 'current_time_ip' (IP-based).
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as valid coordinates or time zone handling, nor any 'when not to use' advice.
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.