Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not clarify whether only the zone parameter is relevant, why url/host/json appear in the schema, or what happens with an invalid timezone name.
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 the key fact front-loaded. It earns its place, though it leaves substantial gaps that additional detail could fill without bloating.
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 has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not say what the response format is or which parameters are actually used. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the input schema leaves an agent unprepared to call it reliably.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It aligns with zone ('named IANA timezone') but does not explain the presence or handling of the other three 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?
The description identifies the resource (named IANA timezone) and the outcome (current time) clearly, and the tool name reinforces it. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns', and the input schema introduces unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that muddy the stated purpose.
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; the sibling tool cc-br is not referenced. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.
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.
Most tools have distinct functions, but names like 'citation', 'compatibility', and 'cc-br' are vague and could be confused with one another or with URL-related tools. The intended purpose of several tools is not immediately clear from the names.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb-noun patterns ('normalize-url', 'validate-json'), while others are bare nouns or adjectives ('citation', 'compatibility', 'timezone'), and one is a specific code ('cc-br'). No consistent naming convention is applied across the set.
With 11 tools, the count is within the typical 3–15 range and does not feel excessive. The breadth is somewhat wide, but the number itself is reasonable for a multi-purpose utility server.
The tool set appears to cover disjoint areas (URLs, HTTP status, timezones, JSON validation, country codes) without a clear unifying domain, so it is hard to assess whether it is complete. Several related operations are missing (e.g., URL encoding/decoding, HTTP request execution), leaving the set feeling partial and ad hoc.