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 transparency burden, but it only states that the tool returns the current time. It does not clarify behavior for invalid zone names, output format, or whether the extra url/host/json parameters are ignored.
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 focused sentence with no redundant wording or structural issues. It is concise and directly communicates 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 definition is incomplete because the input schema contains three unrelated parameters and no explanation of how they relate to the timezone operation. An agent cannot tell whether to provide only zone or all parameters, and there is no output schema or error behavior described.
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?
Only the zone property matches the tool's purpose; url, host, and json have descriptions that appear copied from unrelated tools and are not explained in the description. The schema descriptions do not clarify whether the extra parameters are required, optional, or ignored.
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 clearly states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones. It uses precise terminology and leaves little ambiguity about the core function.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as utc-time or iana-zones, and it does not mention prerequisites or usage context. There is no information about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.
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 serve clearly distinct purposes (URL, time, JSON, robots, etc.), but 'compatibility' is vague and could be confused with other classifications. Overall, the functions are separable.
Naming conventions are inconsistent, mixing hyphenated phrases (domain-shape, normalize-url) with plain words (citation, timezone), and using both nouns and verbs. This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 11 tools, the count falls comfortably within the typical well-scoped range and does not feel excessive or thin.
The set covers a variety of utilities (URL, HTTP, time, JSON, robots) but lacks a clear cohesive domain, leaving gaps for common web-dev helpers like encoding or hashing. It feels like a random collection rather than a complete toolkit.