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 behavioral burden. It states the read-only result (current time) but does not disclose whether the url, host, and json parameters are used or ignored, how invalid timezone names are handled, or what the returned time format is. The mismatch between the description and three of the four schema parameters leaves the tool's actual behavior ambiguous.
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 seven-word sentence with no filler and the core intent is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though the brevity sacrifices clarity about the unrelated schema parameters.
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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It fails to explain the role of url/host/json, describe the expected return value, or give an example invocation, leaving an agent uncertain about correct usage and output.
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 all parameters are already described, earning the baseline of 3. The description adds contextual meaning to the zone parameter by identifying it as the named IANA timezone to query, but it adds no value for url, host, and json, whose schema descriptions ('normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', 'validate') are unrelated to time lookups. The agent can infer the intended call, but cannot determine whether the other parameters matter.
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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the tool's function: return the current time for a given IANA timezone. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, normalize, validate), which suggest different data-processing tasks. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the noun-phrase form is unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. There is no mention of which parameter(s) are relevant or that url/host/json appear to belong to sibling tools. An agent must rely on the tool name alone to infer usage context.
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.
Several tools overlap in input or output: citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, and timezone and utc-time both return current time. The descriptions clarify the intended focus somewhat, but an agent could still misselect between these pairs.
Tool names mix standalone nouns like citation and timezone with verb-noun compounds like inspect-robots and normalize-url, and hyphenation is inconsistent. Most names are still readable and weakly predictable, but there is no strong naming convention.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's apparent 'Robots Inspect' focus is supported by only inspect-robots. The rest are broad URL, time, and JSON utilities, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
For a server named Robots Inspect, robots.txt coverage stops at group counts and offers no way to retrieve actual rules, test URLs against directives, or compare agent policies. The unrelated utilities do not fill this gap, so core inspection workflows would dead-end.