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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) to supplement, and the description itself does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. This leaves the agent without important context.
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 concise and to the point, using a noun phrase that is easy to parse. However, it is extremely short and lacks context about parameters or expected output. The structure is acceptable for a simple tool, but the terseness contributes to incompleteness.
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 incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It does not specify the output format (e.g., ISO 8601, human-readable), how the zone parameter should be formatted (e.g., full IANA name, abbreviation), or handle edge cases like invalid zones. The lack of explanation for url, host, and json also leaves major gaps.
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?
The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but only 'zone' aligns with the description. The descriptions for url, host, and json are generic and irrelevant to a timezone lookup, and the description does not explain their purpose or relationship to the tool. This creates confusion and fails to clarify how to use each parameter.
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 indicates the tool returns the current time for a specific timezone, distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time which likely returns UTC, and tz-america-chicago which is a specific timezone. However, it does not explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'get' or 'return') and is terse.
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 alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this when you need the current time in a specific IANA timezone' or contrast with utc-time or other sibling tools. No comparison or selection criteria are given.
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 have distinct inputs and outputs, but citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs, while timezone, tz-america-chicago, and utc-time all return current time. Descriptions clarify the differences, but compatibility is vague and could be confused with status-catalog or citation.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is readable, but they mix verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation, domain-shape, and status-catalog. There is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'America/Chicago clock' only four tools relate to time. The remaining seven URL, HTTP, robots, and JSON utilities are off-purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The time-related tools cover current time in Chicago, UTC, named IANA zones, and a zone list, so the clock core is usable. However, there is no timezone conversion or date arithmetic, and the unrelated utilities do not form a coherent broader domain, leaving the overall surface incomplete.