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?
There are no annotations indicating read-only or side-effect-free behavior. The description does not disclose error handling, network dependencies, or whether the time is fetched live. The presence of unrelated parameters further obscures the tool's actual behavior, making it hard for an agent to predict what happens when called.
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 itself is succinct, but the overall definition is poorly structured. The schema carries four properties when only one is relevant, adding noise and confusion. A concise, focused definition would include just the zone parameter and perhaps an output description. The current structure forces the agent to reconcile unrelated fields with the stated purpose.
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 lacks essential context: no output schema, no example usage, no mention of whether the time is returned as a string, timestamp, or structured object. The sibling tools (utc-time, tz-europe-madrid) suggest there is a family of time-related tools, but this definition does not explain how timezone fits with them. The missing return type and behavior description leave an agent guessing.
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's parameter descriptions are almost entirely irrelevant: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', and 'JSON text to validate' have nothing to do with timezone lookups. Only 'zone' has a sensible description ('IANA timezone name'), but the confusing descriptors for other parameters undermine trust and likely cause incorrect usage. Schema coverage is 100% only because every property has a description, but the descriptions are wrong for this tool.
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 purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This distinguishes it from generic time tools and specific alternatives like utc-time or tz-europe-madrid. However, it does not mention the output format or whether it returns additional data, so slight ambiguity remains.
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. More critically, the schema includes three irrelevant parameters (url, host, json) with descriptions belonging to other tools, which actively misleads an agent into thinking this tool handles URLs, hosts, or JSON validation. No instructions are given about valid timezone formats or fallback behavior.
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 clear, distinct purposes (e.g., timezone vs. normalize-url). The only minor overlap is between 'timezone' and 'tz-europe-madrid', but they differ in generality (any named zone vs. a fixed zone).
All tool names follow the same lowercase, hyphen-separated pattern (e.g., 'tz-europe-madrid', 'utc-time', 'validate-json'). No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb usage.
11 tools is a reasonable number. The set includes several non-clock utilities (URL, JSON, robots) that broaden scope beyond the server's name, but the count itself is not excessive or too sparse.
For a clock/time server, core operations are covered: UTC time, named timezone, and a specific fixed zone. The 'iana-zones' tool aids discovery, though a full zone list or conversion functionality is missing. Extra web/JSON tools are unrelated but not a defect.