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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'current time' without specifying the return format, error handling for invalid zones, or that only the zone parameter is used. The schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not addressed, leaving behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence with zero waste, directly stating the core function. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple tool, the description omits the return format and does not clarify that only the zone parameter matters. The presence of unrelated parameters in the schema is not explained, and there is no output schema to describe return values. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, but the tool description adds no parameter-specific context. The description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant, and the other parameters appear unrelated. While the schema covers the parameters, the lack of clarification in the description does not add value beyond the schema and may mislead an agent about which parameters are actually used.
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 purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It uses a specific verb ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), which distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time (presumably UTC) and iana-zones (list of zones).
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 implicitly tells an agent to use this when needing the current time in a specific timezone, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as comparing with utc-time for UTC or for listing zones. The condition is implied but not stated.
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 distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between URL-related tools (citation vs normalize-url) and time-related tools (timezone vs utc-time). Overall, the descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
The naming is inconsistent: some tools are nouns (citation, timezone, status-catalog), some are verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), and one is an abbreviated pair (lang-fr). The hyphenated style is consistent, but the verb/noun mix makes the set feel incoherent.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool adds a distinct capability. It is not overly large, though some tools feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities.
The tools cover a variety of network, time, and data-validation utilities, but the scope is unclear. Given the server name 'Language fr', there is very little language-specific functionality beyond lang-fr, so the completeness relative to the implied domain is limited.