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?
There are no annotations at all, so the description must carry full behavioral burden, but it only states a fact, not the tool's behavior. It does not disclose the output format, error behavior for invalid zones, whether the time is formatted, or that the operation is read-only. This is too thin for a agent-facing description without other structured metadata.
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 that directly and immediately conveys the core operation. No waste or filler. This is a model of conciseness, though it leaves key usage details unsaid.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and an input schema with several irrelevant properties, the description does not consistently equip an agent to invoke the tool successfully. It does not clarify which parameters are ignored, what this result looks like, or how it differs from nearby times-related tools.
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?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, it contains three parameters ('url', 'host', 'json') unrelated to the timezone purpose, and the description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions and fails to correct a potential misuse where an agent could supply irrelevant properties.
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 names a specific result type ('current time') and the exact resource ('named IANA timezone'), making the core purpose intelligible. It is naturally distinguished from utc-time by the named timezone aspect, though it lacks an explicit verb and sibling awareness. Overall it is clear but not quite as explicit as a full 'get current time from a zone' phrase.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It does not mention prerequisites, typical queries, or why an agent should pick this over siblings. The reader must infer the use case from the description alone.
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.
Each tool has a unique, well-defined purpose with no overlapping functionality. For example, 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json' address distinct concerns, and time-related tools are clearly separated.
Tool names follow a mix of conventions: some are verb-object (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun phrases (citation, compatibility, timezone). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive. Each tool covers a separate utility, though a few could arguably be merged (e.g., timezone and utc-time), but the number is still within a sensible range.
The server name 'Language ja' suggests a language-related domain, yet the tools cover miscellaneous web utilities (URL handling, HTTP status, time, JSON). This mismatch and lack of a cohesive domain make the surface feel incomplete for any specific purpose.