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 behavior beyond the basic function is disclosed. The input schema includes irrelevant properties (url, host, json) with misleading descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant. This lack of clarification obscures the actual expected inputs and any side effects.
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, brief sentence with no extraneous content, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary context about parameters, but for pure conciseness it earns a high score.
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 lacks essential information: it does not specify the output format, does not explain that only the 'zone' parameter is used, and does not address the confusing extra parameters. Given the misleading schema, the description is far from complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 every parameter has a description, three of the four descriptions (url, host, json) are clearly copied from other tools and are unrelated to timezone functionality. Only 'zone' has a correct description. This actively misleads the agent about the required and meaningful inputs, providing no useful semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.
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 and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling 'utc-time' tool, which also provides a time-related output, so it misses a clear distinction.
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 like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. It neither states conditions for selection nor mentions any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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 functions, but current-time tools overlap: timezone accepts any IANA zone while tz-asia-hong-kong and utc-time are hardcoded special cases, creating redundancy. citation and compatibility also have vague descriptions that could be confused.
Names mix single-word nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone) with hyphenated multi-word phrases (domain-shape, inspect-robots, normalize-url, tz-asia-hong-kong). There is no consistent verb_noun or naming pattern across the set.
11 tools is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'Asia/Hong_Kong clock' many tools (URL, HTTP, JSON, robots.txt) are unrelated to timekeeping. The set feels like a bundled grab-bag rather than a focused clock utility.
For a clock/time server, the core operations exist (list zones, current time in a zone, UTC), but there is no timezone conversion, formatting, or date arithmetic. Meanwhile the unrelated web/JSON utilities do not compensate for the missing time-focused functionality.