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 |
Character count, text discarded
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no detail about side effects, rate limits, or how the parameters are handled. The tool's behavior beyond returning a timestamp is completely 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 concise, which is good, but it omits essential information about parameters and output. It is too short to be considered appropriately sized for this tool.
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 not complete enough for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. It doesn't explain what the parameters are for, what format the timestamp is in, or how it differs from similar tools.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions that are clearly unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The description adds no meaning to these parameters and actually misleads an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the tool's purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) creates confusion, so it doesn't fully clarify what the tool actually does.
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 the siblings (e.g., timezone, iana-zones). The description offers 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
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.