timezone
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
Input Schema
| 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 |
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 implies a read-only, deterministic lookup with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state this. There are no annotations to supplement, so the agent must rely on common sense that fetching current time is non-destructive. The lack of any mention of errors or edge cases (e.g., invalid timezone) reduces transparency.
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 brief, which is efficient. However, it omits any mention of the output format or the fact that a timezone parameter is required, so it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the mismatched schema parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, nor does it describe the output structure (e.g., a string with the time). The lack of an output schema amplifies the need for a clearer description, which is absent.
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 input schema contains four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly mismatched with the timezone purpose, being copied from a different tool. The description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant or explain the others. This is highly misleading and fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: returning the current time in a named IANA timezone. It is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time and tz-europe-london, which are also time-related but with different scopes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or tz-europe-london. The description does not mention any prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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 purpose: `timezone` and `tz-europe-london` both report current time, and `citation`, `normalize-url`, and `domain-shape` all inspect URL components. The mix of URL, HTTP, JSON, and clock tools makes it unclear which tool should be used for a given request.
Tool names mix noun phrases (`citation`, `status-catalog`), hyphenated action verbs (`normalize-url`, `validate-json`), and a specific timezone identifier (`tz-europe-london`). There is no consistent verb-noun or domain-based naming pattern across the set.
The server name suggests a clock/timezone tool, but 11 tools include many unrelated URL, HTTP, and JSON utilities. This is far more than needed for the apparent core purpose, and the extra tools add noise rather than value.
For the clock/timezone aspect, the set provides UTC time, named timezone lookup, and a list of IANA zones, which covers basic needs. However, the inclusion of unrelated URL/HTTP/JSON tools makes the completeness of the overall server muddled, and there is no timezone conversion or formatting utility.