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 |
ISO country DE
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present and the description does not disclose side effects, output format, or any behavioral details beyond the basic timestamp claim.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and free of fluff, but it omits necessary information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified despite being concise.
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?
With no output schema and no explanation of the mismatched parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate arguments.
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?
The schema includes four parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions appear mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not explain how they affect the UTC timestamp output. The description adds no clarification.
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' states the basic purpose but lacks a clear verb and does not explain how the listed parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like timezone but not fully clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or validate-json. The description gives no context for selection.
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
C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct functions, though 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handle URLs, and 'timezone'/'utc-time' overlap in time handling. 'compatibility' is vague but not truly duplicate.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but mix verb-led ('inspect-robots', 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and noun-led ('citation', 'timezone', 'status-catalog') patterns; 'cc-de' is an outlier.
Tool Count2/5
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but the server name implies a narrow ISO country (DE) purpose while most tools are unrelated web/time/JSON utilities, making the set feel mismatched.
Completeness2/5
As a country-ISO resource, only cc-de covers that purpose; as a general utility set, it lacks many standard web operations (e.g., actual HTTP fetch, DNS, text processing), so completeness is poor for the apparent stated purpose.