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 behavior disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only time lookup, but does not mention output format, invalid zone handling, or whether the current time is fetched live or computed locally.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place and wastes no words.
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 is simple and the core behavior is clear, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out useful details like response format, invalid zone behavior, and the fact that only the zone parameter matters despite four schema properties.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema includes three unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not clarified as irrelevant to the timezone operation.
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 the tool's core function: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific enough to distinguish from utc-time, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or mention alternatives.
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?
The description implies it should be used when a timezone name is available, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over utc-time or other siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues.
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 are functionally distinct, but citation vs normalize-url and timezone vs utc-time could be confused. color-hex-ok has no real description beyond the server name, making its purpose ambiguous.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the pattern is mixed: some are nouns (citation, timezone), some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json), and color-hex-ok doesn't fit any pattern. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun or noun style.
11 tools is numerically modest, but the server name implies a CSS hex color scope, and only one tool relates to that topic. The other utilities form an arbitrary grab bag, so the count is not appropriate for the stated purpose.
For the stated CSS hex color purpose, there is only color-hex-ok with no visible parse/convert/manipulate operations. If interpreted as a general utility server, there is no coherent domain to assess, so the surface feels incomplete either way.