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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns current time but does not mention whether the result is formatted, whether it accepts any other parameters, or any edge cases such as invalid timezone names. The description is too terse to convey meaningful behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent would need to know what the tool accepts (especially that 'zone' is the relevant parameter) and what the output format looks like, none of which is specified.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that the 'zone' parameter is the focus, but since the schema covers the rest, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' provides a verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools, which appear to be unrelated utilities. The tool name and description align, but the purpose is only minimally clear and no differentiator is offered.
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 the tool reports the current time for a given IANA timezone, which clearly suggests using the 'zone' parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.
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 in purpose: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, timezone and utc-time both return current time, and compatibility's classification is unclear next to status-catalog. The broad mix of currency, time, URL, and HTTP tools makes selection ambiguous.
Names are all lowercase hyphenated, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-noun pattern. Vague names like citation and compatibility sit beside concrete names like status-catalog and utc-time, making the naming feel arbitrary.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but only one tool relates to the server's stated 'Currency USD' domain. The count is padded with unrelated utilities across timezones, URLs, robots, and JSON, so it does not fit the server's apparent scope.
For a currency-related server, the surface is almost entirely missing: only fx-usd exists, with no conversion, rates, formatting, or currency list. Even as a general utility set, it has no coherent domain and many natural operations are absent.