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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the purpose. It does not disclose what happens with an invalid zone, the return format, whether network access is needed, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent with no behavioral guarantees.
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 extremely short, front-loaded, free of filler, and easy to scan in one glance. Every word contributes to the purpose, which is exactly what the conciseness and structure dimension rewards.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't state that `zone` is the primary/only relevant input, how to handle the other params, what the response looks like, or error behavior, leaving the agent uncertain at invocation time.
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 each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small link between 'named IANA timezone' and the `zone` param, but it does not explain the presence or role of `url`, `host`, and `json`, which are alongside `zone` and could easily mislead an agent.
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' states a clear resource (current time) and scope (a named IANA zone), and it is distinguishable from some siblings like `utc-time` (UTC vs a named zone). It does not explicitly contrast with `tz-europe-berlin` or `iana-zones`, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and none of the sibling tools are referenced. With several releted siblings (`utc-time`, `iana-zones`, `tz-europe-berlin`), the agent is left to infer the intended use, and the description doesn't clarify which parameter to set.
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 purpose: timezone, tz-europe-berlin, and utc-time all return current time, and citation/normalize-url both analyze URL components. 'compatibility' is too vague to distinguish from the other HTTP/classification tools.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent delimiter style, but the pattern mixes verb phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json) with noun phrases (citation, compatibility, status-catalog). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_noun convention.
Eleven tools is not excessive in raw count, but the server is named as a clock and only four tools (timezone, tz-europe-berlin, utc-time, iana-zones) support that purpose. The rest are unrelated web/HTTP/JSON utilities, making the set poorly scoped.
For the clock domain, time lookup is covered but timezone conversion is missing. For the broader web/HTTP utilities hinted at by the other tools, the surface is incomplete and lacks a clear lifecycle or workflow, so agents would hit dead ends.