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, and it only says the output is the current time. It does not mention output format, what happens for invalid IANA names, error behavior, or that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant while three other schema parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose.
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 short sentence, which is front-loaded and easy to read, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Given the misleading schema parameters, a slightly longer description that explicitly pointed to 'zone' would have added necessary value.
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?
Context vast — the tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and the description leaves the invocation contract underspecified. It does not say which parameter to provide, what response shape to expect, or why the url/host/json parameters exist; the description-schema mismatch is left completely unresolved.
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 coverage is formally 100%, but three of the four parameters (url, host, json) describe normalization, citation, and validation concerns that are irrelevant to the timezone purpose. The description names no parameters, so it fails to disambiguate the useful 'zone' parameter from the distractors—leaving the agent to infer the intended parameter on its own.
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,' identifies a specific resource (named IANA timezone) and an output (current time), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fetch, scrape, and validate. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment with no explicit verb, and the schema's url/host/json parameters undermine the clarity by suggesting unrelated capabilities.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as lookup, normalize, or validate. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or any conditions that would make an alternative preferable, leaving the agent to guess.
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 target clearly distinct resources: URL components, IP version, robots.txt, time zones, JSON, and HTTP status codes. However, citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs, and compatibility is vague enough that an agent might pause to determine which tool applies.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which gives a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes verb-object names like normalize-url and validate-json with noun compounds like status-catalog and iana-zones, so there is no consistent semantic naming pattern.
Eleven tools is a reasonable number for a utility server, and each tool performs a distinct small task. The scope is broad—covering URLs, HTTP, time, and JSON—so it feels less tightly focused than a single-domain server.
The set covers simple URL inspection, HTTP status lookup, current time retrieval, and JSON validation. Natural gaps remain, such as timezone conversion, HTTP header inspection, or deeper network diagnostics, so the surface is useful but not comprehensive.