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 disclosing behavior. It does not mention how invalid timezones are handled, whether a network call is made, or how the extra schema parameters (url, host, json) affect execution. The unexplained mismatch between the description and schema is a significant transparency gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified for a schema with four parameters, especially given the apparent mismatch. It is concise but does not earn its place by disambiguating the tool's actual interface.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema containing four heterogeneous parameters. The one-sentence description leaves an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool: it does not clarify which parameter(s) are relevant, whether the others are ignored, or what the response format is. This is a serious completeness gap.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already says for `zone`. More importantly, the description fails to explain the presence or role of url, host, and json, which are irrelevant to a timezone lookup. An agent cannot confidently determine whether those parameters are ignored, required, or serve an alternate purpose.
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 specific, distinct action: retrieving the current time for a named IANA timezone. This clearly separates timezone from its siblings like citation or validate_json. However, the input schema contains unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not addressed, so the description alone does not fully clarify which parameters belong to this tool's 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., timezone validity), and no exclusions. An agent cannot infer the intended context beyond the bare statement of what it does.
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 distinct, but citation and normalize-url both accept URLs and return host/scheme, so an agent could select the wrong one. timezone/utc-time/iana-zones and compatibility/status-catalog also have overlapping territory, though the descriptions provide some separation.
Names are readable but follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun compounds or standalone nouns (timezone, status-catalog, compatibility). This mix is not chaotic, but it lacks a predictable pattern.
11 tools is not excessive, and each utility is small and self-contained. However, the set feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, and some tools could plausibly be consolidated.
The tools cover basic URL inspection, HTTP status, time lookups, JSON validation, and random generation, but the server's intended domain is unclear. Within that mix, there are notable gaps such as no timezone conversion, no URL encoding/decoding, and no way to inspect HTTP headers, so coverage feels incomplete.