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, the description carries the burden, and it does communicate the core behavior: a read-only current-time lookup. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as missing or invalid timezone names, possible network dependence, or the output format, which leaves some transparency gaps.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core function and contains only information necessary to understand the tool's purpose.
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 description is minimally adequate for a simple lookup: an agent can infer that it should provide an IANA zone via the zone parameter. But it is incomplete in important ways: no annotations, no output schema, no mention of error behavior, and no clarification of the irrelevant schema fields or the fact that zone should logically be required.
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 zone parameter is clearly described as 'IANA timezone name,' aligning with the description. The description adds little beyond that, but the schema also includes unrelated optional fields (url, host, json) and no required parameters, and the description does not clarify that zone is the intended meaningful input.
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 a clear, specific function: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like utc-time (UTC) and iana-zones (listing zones), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus utc-time, iana-zones, or other siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the only usage signal is the implied meaning of the description.
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.
Most tools have clearly different outputs, but there are overlapping clusters: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all deal with URL/hostname shapes, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all cover time. A couple of vague names like compatibility and citation could also cause initial misselection.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which gives a visual consistency, but they mix verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun-led names like status-catalog and timezone. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to be considered strongly consistent.
11 tools is within a reasonable range and none feels redundant, but the collection spans several unrelated concerns such as URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON validation, and robots.txt. It is slightly broad, though not bloated.
The set covers common lookups like URL normalization, status codes, time, and JSON validation, but there is no coherent domain that ties these together. Obvious adjacent operations such as redirect checking, response header inspection, or rate-limit-specific details are missing, leaving an agent with possible dead ends.