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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'current time'. It does not disclose how invalid zone names are handled, the format of the returned time, DST behavior, or whether the result is UTC-based. No annotation contradiction exists, but the transparency gap is significant for an un-annotated tool.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The core function is front-loaded and every word earns its place, which is ideal for a simple time-lookup tool.
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 output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the result looks like and how errors are handled, but it offers neither. It also leaves the four-parameter schema unexplained, when three parameters are clearly irrelevant to the stated purpose. An agent is left guessing the return format and the zone parameter requirements.
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 documents all four parameters, but three of them (url, host, json) are irrelevant to 'current time in an IANA timezone' and appear to belong to sibling tools; only zone fits the tool's purpose. The description does not flag this mismatch or clarify that only zone should be populated, so an agent given the schema could misuse the tool. Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description fails to add the critical disambiguation needed here.
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 the function with a specific verb and resource: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation, status, and validate-json, which serve unrelated purposes. It is not a tautology because it adds the 'current time' semantics and the IANA scope beyond the tool name.
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 statement implies a usage scenario — fetching the current time for a specific timezone — but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. For a simple utility this may suffice, but an agent receives no help deciding between this and any time-related sibling. Score 3 because usage is implied rather than stated.
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 operate on URLs and return overlapping metadata (citation vs normalize-url vs compatibility), and timezone overlaps with tz-australia-sydney. While descriptions add detail, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for host/status or local-time tasks.
Tool names mix single nouns (citation, timezone), hyphenated noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog), and verb_noun commands (inspect-robots, validate-json). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern, making the surface feel ad hoc.
Eleven tools is not inherently too many, but for a server named 'Australia/Sydney clock' the majority of tools are unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON utilities. The set would be better split into a clock server and a web-metadata server.
The time-related surface is reasonably complete with UTC, named timezone, Sydney time, and a zone catalog, but notable gaps remain such as timezone conversion and offset information. The URL/HTTP tools cover several metadata operations but lack obvious related operations, so overall domain coverage is uneven.