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 provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns the current time, implying a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose output format, timezone validation behavior, or what happens if the zone name is invalid. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unspecified.
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 very short, a single phrase, which is appropriately concise for such a simple function. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. It earns a 4 because it is not padded or verbose, though it could benefit from a second sentence about usage or output.
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 has a single conceptual parameter (zone) and no output schema. With no annotations and a minimal description, an agent lacks guidance on expected return format, error handling, and how to distinguish this tool from siblings. The output schema absence increases the need for description-provided context, which is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'zone' parameter as an IANA timezone name. The description redundantly restates this, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The two unrelated parameters (url, host, json) suggest this schema may be reused, but the description does not clarify that they are irrelevant to this tool.
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 reports the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is clear about the core function, but it is terse and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, making it adequate but not strongly differentiating.
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 usage: provide a valid IANA timezone name. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it mention any validation or edge-case behavior for invalid or nonexistent zones. The context is clear enough for a simple query, but no explicit guidance is given.
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.
Several tools overlap around URL inspection (citation vs normalize-url) and time (timezone vs utc-time), though their descriptions clarify differing outputs. The vague compatibility tool adds some ambiguity about when it should be selected.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent style, but the pattern mixes noun phrases like citation and timezone with verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. This is readable but does not follow one predictable convention.
Eleven tools is a reasonable size for this collection of privacy-preserving utility functions. The count is not bloated, though the time-related tools could arguably be consolidated.
The tool surface covers the apparent domain of inspecting data shapes without retaining content: URLs, email, JSON, robots.txt, time, and HTTP status. Minor gaps like direct header or DNS inspection exist, but common workflows are not dead-ended.