utc-time
Current UTC timestamp.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| 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 |
16 random hex chars
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only states the output is a UTC timestamp but does not mention whether the zone parameter affects the result, whether the other parameters are ignored, or what the exact response format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and to the point, which is good for conciseness. However, it may be too under-specified to be genuinely useful, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of each parameter, whether they are optional, and what the actual return value looks like, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the description adds no value beyond the schema and does not clarify why a time tool accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters, leaving semantic relationships unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time. However, it does not explain how the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this behavior, which is confusing and undermines clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compatibility or domain-shape. It does not state that the parameters are optional or irrelevant, leaving an agent uncertain about what arguments to pass.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.