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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'current time' and does not describe the output format, error behavior, or whether the unrelated schema parameters are ignored.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits important usage and parameter context.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not specify the return format, whether the zone parameter is required, or how invalid timezone names are handled.
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?
The schema describes each parameter, but the tool description only relates to 'zone'. The presence of url, host, and json parameters is unexplained and potentially misleading for a timezone tool, so the description does not adequately clarify parameter relevance.
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 states a specific operation and resource: retrieving the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It also does not clarify that the zone parameter is the relevant input, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 outputs, but citation and normalize-url overlap in URL parsing, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with citation's request classification.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but they mix noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, iana-zones) with verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json). 'cc-gb' and 'compatibility' do not follow a clear pattern.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range and not overwhelming. The set is broad but each tool serves a distinct utility purpose, so the count feels acceptable.
The tools cover common web/network utilities like URL parsing, time zones, HTTP statuses, and JSON validation, but the domain is not clearly defined. Obvious companions such as a direct HTTP fetch or DNS/WHOIS lookup are missing.