utc-time
Current UTC timestamp.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Byte count, text discarded
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations and no description of side effects, return format, error behavior, or how the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the stated purpose. The behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and contains no fluff, but it is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information about parameters and behavior. It is concise in word count but not in explanatory completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is grossly incomplete given the four parameters and the absence of an output schema. It does not explain the return value, how inputs affect the output, or any contextual constraints. The parameter mismatch further undermines completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') are entirely inconsistent with the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. This creates strong confusion rather than clarifying usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current UTC timestamp' indicates the tool returns the current UTC time, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-driven statement. It does not sufficiently distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'validate-json' given the unrelated parameter names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, limitations, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool.
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
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as byte-count, validate-json, and utc-time. However, citation and normalize-url both handle URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide time information, which could lead to occasional misselection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names are mostly lowercase with hyphens, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are nouns (byte-count, timezone, status-catalog) while others are verbs (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no clear verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
Tool Count4/5
11 tools is a reasonable count for a utility server covering URLs, time, robots, and data validation. Each tool does something different, though a few are quite trivial, making the set slightly broad but not excessive.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover several common utility categories like URL normalization, current time, timezone lookup, and JSON validation. However, the scope is broad and shallow, leaving obvious gaps such as domain lookups, HTTP request mechanics, or date formatting, and there is no unifying workflow to judge full coverage.