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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Current time' without indicating whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational impact.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential information. It does not structure the details of input or output, making it more of a vague label than a useful description.
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 lack of output schema and the minimal description, the tool is not self-contained. An agent would not know what the tool returns (e.g., formatted time, timezone offset) or how to handle errors. This is especially problematic because the schema includes unrelated parameters that require clarification.
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 includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but the tool description only mentions a 'named IANA timezone' without explicitly linking it to the 'zone' parameter. The other parameters are entirely unexplained in the description, leaving the agent confused about their 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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone,' which gives a basic idea but fails to specify which parameter corresponds to the timezone and does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) further muddies the 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice.
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 target distinct operations—text counting, JSON validation, robots inspection, time utilities—and descriptions clarify the differences. The main risk is citation versus normalize-url, since both describe URL components, and timezone versus utc-time could occasionally cause misselection.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase, but they mix styles: verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json, noun compounds like char-count and status-catalog, and single nouns like citation and compatibility. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 11 tools, the set is well within the ideal range and each utility addresses a separate use case. No obvious redundant or filler tools are present.
The surface covers text validation, URL inspection, robots, time, and HTTP status reasonably well for a privacy-focused utility server. Missing conveniences like timezone conversion or URL encoding are minor and can be worked around.