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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Current time') but does not disclose behavior for invalid zone names, what happens when url/host/json are supplied, or the response format.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core concept. However, for a tool with four schema parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify the expected inputs and return format. It does not explain why url/host/json are accepted, nor what the caller receives beyond 'current time'. The mismatch between the description and schema leaves significant gaps.
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 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema, but the description only aligns with 'zone'. It adds no meaning about the unrelated url, host, and json parameters and fails to resolve the apparent mismatch between the timezone purpose and the four-field schema.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. It implicitly differentiates from a tool like utc-time but does not explicitly name siblings. The unrelated schema parameters do not obscure the core purpose.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time. The description only implies use when an IANA zone name is provided, with no exclusions or decision rules.
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 distinct purposes, but URL-related tools like citation and normalize-url and time tools like timezone and utc-time occupy adjacent territory. Descriptions are clear enough that an agent can usually select correctly.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which provides a consistent visual style. However, the set mixes noun-style names (citation, timezone), verb-style names (normalize-url, validate-json), and abbreviation-style names (km-to-mi), so there is no uniform verb_noun convention.
A server named 'Kilometers to miles' having 11 tools is excessive, since only km-to-mi relates to the stated purpose. The count could work for a general utility server, but it does not fit the apparent conversion-focused scope.
As a unit conversion service, the server is severely incomplete: it only supports kilometers-to-miles and lacks the reverse conversion or other conversions. As a utility collection, the tools are unrelated and form no coherent domain whose completeness can be judged.