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?
Annotations are none provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current time' which is a read operation, but does not state behavior like timezone lookup, formatting, or error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only minimal behavioral context beyond what an agent might infer.
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 one short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It does not waste words, but it also lacks any structural guidance (e.g., examples) that could help an agent. Efficient but minimal.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too skeletal. It doesn't clarify which parameter is mandatory (zone) despite being optional in the schema, nor does it explain how the time is returned or how errors are handled. The description is complete only for a trivial case, which is unlikely for an agent.
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 parameters (url, host, json, zone). The description adds nothing about which parameter to use or how to format the zone name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description gives no extra semantics.
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' states a clear verb+resource, so it tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tools like 'citation' or 'normalize-url' without opening their schemas. Given the simplicity, this is a basic description but not a tautology.
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: to get the current time for a specific IANA timezone. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that the 'zone' parameter is the relevant one. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving usage context implicit.
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: citation and normalize-url both decompose URLs into host/scheme, http-200 is a single-code subset of status-catalog, and timezone/utc-time both give current time. compatibility is too vague to position relative to the others, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
All names use lowercase-with-hyphens, but the style mixes nouns (status-catalog, timezone), verbs (normalize-url, validate-json), and code-like labels (http-200). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the naming remains readable.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a web/HTTP utility server. However, a few tools could be consolidated (http-200 into status-catalog, utc-time into timezone), so the count is slightly higher than needed but not excessive.
The set covers common status-code lookup, URL parsing, robots.txt inspection, JSON validation, and time retrieval, but it lacks natural complements such as timezone conversion, header inspection, or URL construction. These gaps are workable, but they make the surface feel incomplete for a general HTTP/URL utility tool.