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 behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the output. It does not mention error handling for invalid zones, whether the tool is read-only, or why the schema includes url, host, and json parameters that appear unrelated to timezone lookup.
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 well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the schema introduces four parameters with no indication of which are needed or why the three URL/JSON-related parameters exist. The description also omits output format, error behavior, and whether the zone parameter is required, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.
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 baseline is 3. The schema documents each parameter individually, but the description adds no clarification about which parameter is actually relevant or why url, host, and json appear on a timezone tool. The zone parameter aligns with the description, but the mismatch among the other parameters is confusing.
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' clearly identifies the action (retrieve current time) and the resource (IANA timezone). It also easily distinguishes this tool from the URL/JSON-focused siblings like normalize-url and validate-json.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required parameters, and no exclusions. The description simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.
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 occupy overlapping URL/time territory: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all parse hostnames, while timezone and utc-time both give current time. The descriptions help distinguish them, but compatibility and hex-16 are vague enough that an agent could struggle to select them confidently.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated, but the pattern is mixed: inspect-robots, normalize-url, and validate-json use verb-noun, while citation, compatibility, status-catalog, and timezone are noun-only. There is no predictable verb_noun scheme, but the readable kebab-case style prevents it from feeling chaotic.
11 tools is within the normal 3-15 range and the server covers several small utility subdomains. However, a few tools like hex-16 and compatibility feel tangential or underdeveloped, making the set slightly less cohesive than ideal.
The set covers a reasonable range of stateless web/request utilities: URL parsing, HTTP status, robots inspection, time, and JSON validation. Gaps exist, such as no way to inspect query parameters or request headers, and the time utilities feel disconnected from the URL-focused tools, so the overall surface is moderate rather than complete.