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. It only states the high-level function and does not disclose any behavioral details such as return format, error handling, side effects, or whether the time is fetched live. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the core function. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 description is too brief to be complete given the unexpected parameters. It does not clarify why 'url', 'host', and 'json' are included, nor does it explain the output (e.g., time string, offset, or full timestamp). This leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly, especially given the schema anomalies.
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 covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. Parameters like 'url', 'host', and 'json' have descriptions unrelated to timezone lookup (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), which seems copied from other tools. Only 'zone' aligns with the purpose, making the parameter semantics misleading.
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's function: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource (time in a timezone), distinguishing it from generic time tools and aligning with the 'zone' parameter.
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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. It only implies usage for a named timezone, leaving the decision to the agent without clear guidance on other available options.
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 are clearly distinct, but 'citation' and 'compatibility' have vague descriptions that could overlap with HTTP status handling, and 'status-catalog' adds further potential confusion. URL-related tools are distinguishable but require careful reading.
All names consistently use lowercase hyphenated style, but they mix noun phrases like 'timezone' and 'status-catalog' with verb-object forms like 'normalize-url' and 'validate-json'. This is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 11 tools, the set is reasonably sized and not overwhelming. Each tool appears to serve a single utility purpose, fitting the apparent web-utility domain.
The collection covers common web development utilities: URL handling, HTTP status, time, timezone, JSON validation, robots.txt inspection, and language tags. There are no major dead ends, though the server name 'Language zh' does not strongly align with the broader tool set.