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 |
Hex encode, input discarded
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a description that only mentions a timestamp, there is no disclosure of side effects, safety, or any behavior beyond the immediate output. The mismatched parameters further obscure what the tool actually does.
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 brief and front-loaded, but it omits essential context about the parameters and expected input/output structure. Brevity does not compensate for the lack of actionable detail.
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?
There is no output schema, no request/response examples, no notes on error conditions, and no explanation of how the parameters influence the result. The tool is far from complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
Although the schema includes descriptions for each parameter, those descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') have no connection to the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp, making the parameters misleading and functionally unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Current UTC timestamp,' which gives a clear output, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to that purpose, making the actual function ambiguous and self-contradictory.
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, what problem it solves, or how it relates to sibling tools like timezone or validate-json. The description offers no context for selection or invocation.
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 have clearly distinct outputs: URL metadata, URL normalization, hostname labels, robots inspection, HTTP status catalog, time lookups, JSON validation, and hex encoding. The main ambiguity is between citation and normalize-url, which both return host/scheme information, and between timezone and utc-time, though the descriptions help clarify their different outputs.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase hyphenation, giving a surface-level consistency. However, the set mixes nouns like citation and timezone, verb-object forms like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and the unusual hex-ok, so there is no consistent naming pattern.
Tool Count4/5
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and within the well-scoped range. The tools span URL, time, and data utility categories without feeling redundant, though the breadth suggests a general-purpose utility server rather than a tightly focused one.
Completeness3/5
The set covers common URL, time, and simple data-validation needs, but the overall domain is broad and somewhat unclear. Obvious companion operations are missing, such as hex decoding, timezone conversion, or more detailed request inspection beyond the vague compatibility tool.